MS! 


■ 


■ 


KfKwS 


: 


.', 


ii 


m 


mm 


mm 


,   : 


m 


.  ■'./; 


HHi 


55$ 


Stffifl 


88858 


—ffiffl 


hbS&k 


Eaarcl 

m 


365992 


tf*# 


i$ 


^RV  OF  PMNcifo 


Me 
■  &5Z3 

v.l 


COMMENTAK^  JUL  2  1959  * 

GOSPEL    OF   JOHN 

WITH   AN 

HISTORICAL   AND    CRITICAL   INTRODUCTION 


R  GODET, 


DOCTOR  IN  THEOLOGY   AND  PROFESSOR  IN  THE  FACULTY  OF  THE! 
INDEPENDENT  CHURCH  OF  NEUCHATEL. 


VOL.  I. 

TRANSLATED  FROM  THE  THIRD  FRENCH  EDITION 

WITH   A 

PREFACE,    INTRODUCTORY   SUGGESTIONS, 
AND   ADDITIONAL  NOTES 

BY 

■ 

TIMOTHY  DWIGHT, 

PROFESSOR  OF   SACRED  LITERATURE  IN  YALE  COLLEGE. 


NEW  YORK: 

FUNK    &  WAGNALLS,  Publishers, 

18  and  20  Astor  Place, 

1890. 

[All  Rights  Reserved.'] 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  188«. 

By  FUNK  &  WAGNALLS, 

In  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington,  D.  C. 


PREFACE 

TO  THE  AMERICAN  EDITION. 


The  Commentary  on  the  Gospel  of  John  which  is  now  presented,  in 
its  third  edition,  to  American  readers,  has  been  well  known  to  New 
Testament  scholars  for  twenty  years.  It  was  originally  published  in 
1864-5,  and  immediately  commanded  attention.  Ten  or  eleven  years 
later  an  enlarged  and  greatly  improved  edition  was  issued,  which  was 
soon  afterwards  translated  into  English.  The  first  volume  of  the  third 
edition  was  given  to  the  public  in  1881 ;  the  second  and  third  volumes 
have  appeared  during  the  present  year  (1885).  Unlike  most  of  the 
German  commentators  of  recent  days,  Godet  has,  with  each  new  edi- 
tion, not  simply  revised  what  he  had  written  at  an  earlier  date,  but,  in 
large  measure,  prepared  a  new  work.  This  is  very  strikingly  true  of 
the  introductory  volume  of  this  latest  edition  of  the  original,  which 
covers  the  first  two  hundred  and  nineteen  pages  of  this  translation.  It 
is  also  true,  as  the  reader  who  compares  the  two  with  minute  study  will 
perceive,  that  in  the  commentary  properly  so  called  every  paragraph 
has  been  subjected  to  careful  examination,  and  even  where  the  matter 
is  not  altogether  new,  sentences  have  been  very  largely  re-written,  with 
changes  sometimes  of  importance  to  the  thought  and  sometimes  appar- 
ently only  for  purposes  of  style.  That  the  work  has  been  greatly  im- 
proved by  these  new  labors  of  the  author  will  be  admitted  by  all  who 
read  the  second  and  third  editions  in  connection  with  each  other.  It 
may  be  almost  said,  that  as  great  a  service  has  been  rendered  by  the 
additions  and  revisions  since  the  book  was  first  issued  as  was  rendered 
by  its  original  publication.  Among  the  commentaries  on  this  Gospel, 
this  may  be  ranked  as  one  of  the  best — a  book  which  every  student  and 
minister  may  well  examine,  both  for  the  light  which  it  throws  upon  this 


iy  PREFACE  TO  THE  AMERICAN   EDITION. 

most  deeply  interesting  portion  of  the  New  Testament  and  for  its  sug- 
gestiveness  to  Christian  thought. 

When  the  proposal  was  first  made  to  publish  a  new  translation  in 
this  country,  it  was  supposed  that  it  would  be  ready  for  publication  at 
a  considerably  earlier  date.  But  soon  after  the  work  was  undertaken, 
it  was  ascertained  that  the  second  and  third  volumes  of  the  third  edition 
would  appear  in  Switzerland  in  1885,  and  it  was  accordingly  deemed 
best  to  await  their  issue.  Advance  sheets  were  kindly  forwarded  by 
the  author  as  soon  as  they  were  printed — the  preparation  of  this  Ameri- 
can edition  being  the  result  of  consultation  with  him  and  having  his 
approval.  The  present  volume  contains  one  half  of  the  book,  including 
the  General  Introduction  (Vol.  I.)  of  the  original,  and  the  Commentary 
as  far  as  the  end  of  the  fifth  chapter  of  the  Gospel,  or  about  four-fifths 
of  Vol.  II.  The  remainder  of  the  translation,  it  is  expected,  will  be 
published  about  the  first  of  July,  1886. 

Of  the  work  of  the  American  editor  a  few  words  may  be  said.  With 
reference  to  the  translation  I  may  be  allowed  to  state  two  things :  1. 
That  my  endeavor  has  been  rather  to  place  before  the  reader  the  exact- 
ness of  the  author's  thought,  than  to  make  prominent  the  matter  of 
English  style.  In  this  sense,  I  have  sought  to  give  a  literal,  rather  than 
an  elegant  rendering  of  the  original.  I  have,  however,  as  I  trust,  not 
altogether  failed  in  making  a  readable  book,  which  may  represent 
faithfully  in  all  respects  what  Godet  gave  to  his  French  readers.  2.  A 
translation  of  the  first  volume  of  the  third  edition  of  the  French  work 
(pp.  1-219  of  this  vol.)  was  published  in  connection  with  the  Edinburgh 
translation  of  the  second  edition  about  two  years  ago.  It  was  not  in  my 
hands,  however,  until  my  own  translation  was  finished.  In  the  final 
revision  of  my  work,  as  the  volume  was  about  to  be  printed,  I  compared 
it  with  this  translation,  and  in  a  few  instances,  of  no  special  significance, 
I  allowed  myself  to  be  affected  by  it  in  the  choice  of  a  word.  For  any- 
thing of  this  kind  as  connected  with  the  English  work  in  its  second  or 
third  edition,  or  with  the  German  translation  of  the  second  edition 
which  was  in  my  hands,  but  which  being  not  altogether  on  the  plan  of 
my  own,  I  used  very  little,  I  would  make  whatever  acknowledgment 
may  be  due.  The  statement  already  made,  however,  will  show  that  my 
work  was  done  independently,  and  that  if  correspondences  in  phrase- 


PREFACE   TO   THE   AMERICAN   EDITION.  V 

ology  with  the  English  translation  occur,  they  are  due  to  the  fact  that  a 
substantially  literal  conformity  to  the  French  has  been  attempted  both 
by  the  English  translator  and  myself. 

In  the  limited  number  of  pages  allowed  me  for  additions  to  Godet's 
work,  I  have,  at  the  end  of  the  volume,  inserted  some  introductory  re- 
marks on  a  certain  part  of  the  internal  argument  for  the  genuineness 
of  the  fourth  Gospel,  and  also  some  additional  annotations  on  the  first 
five  chapters.  I  would  ask  the  reader's  considerate  attention  to  all  the 
suggestions  contained  in  these  additional  pages. 

To  the  students  and  graduates  of  the  Divinity  School  of  Yale  College 
I  dedicate  my  part  of  this  volume  and  the  one  which  is  to  follow  it, 
bearing  with  me  always  a  most  kindly  feeling  toward  them  and  a  most 
pleasant  remembrance  of  their  friendship  for  me. 

TIMOTHY  DWIGHT. 

New  Haven.  Dec.  25^,  1885. 


PREFACE 

TO  THE  THIRD  FRENCH  EDITION. 


I  am  permitted  for  the  third  time  to  present  to  the  Church  thia 
Commentary  on  the  book  which  seems  to  me  to  be  its  most  precious 
jewel,  on  the  narrative  of  the  life  of  Jesus  in  which  His  most  intimate 
friend  has  included  his  most  glorious  and  most  sacred  recollections.  I 
feel  all  the  responsibility  of  this  office,  but  I  know  also  the  beauty  of 
it ;  and  I  at  once  humble  myself  and  rejoice. 

God  has  blessed  the  publication  of  this  Commentary  beyond  all  that 
I  was  able  to  imagine  when  I  wrote  it  for  the  first  time.  To  do  some- 
thing, in  my  weakness,  for  the  Church  of  France— the  noblest  branch, 
perhaps,  which  the  tree  that  came  from  the  grain  of  mustard-seed  has 
put  forth,  but  whose  position  seems  to  me  more  serious  at  this  hour  than 
in  the  days  of  bloody  persecution, — this  was  all  my  ambition ;  it  ap- 
peared to  me  even  to  border  upon  presumption.  And  now  I  receive 
from  many  quarters  testimonies  of  affectionate  sympathy  and  intimate 
communion  of  spirit,  and  I  see  this  work  translated  into  German,  Eng- 
lish, Dutch,  Danish,  Swedish,  and  exerting  its  influence  far  beyond  the 
circle  which  I  had  proposed  to  myself  to  reach.  God  has  done,  accord- 
ing to  the  expression  of  the  apostle,  more  than  all  that  I  was  able  to 
ash  or  even  to  think. 

In  the  preceding  edition,  I  had  completely  remodelled  the  treatment 
of  the  critical  questions,  by  uniting  all  the  discussions  relative  to  the 
origin  of  the  fourth  Gospel  in  a  special  volume.  This  arrangement  has 
been  maintained;  nevertheless,  there  is  scarcely  a  page,  scarcely  a 
phrase  of  the  preceding  edition  which  has  not  been  recast,  and,  as  it 
were,  composed  anew.  The  reason  of  this  fact  is  found,  not  only  in  the 
profound  sense  which  I  had  of  the  imperfections  of  the  previous  work, 


V1H 


PREFACE  TO   THE  THIRD   FRENCH   EDITION. 


but  also  in  the  appearance  of  recent  works  which  I  was  obliged  to  take 
into  the  most  special  consideration.  I  allude  particularly  to  the  The- 
ologie  johannique  of  M.  Reuss,  in  his  great  work  on  La  Bible  (1879),  to 
the  essay  of  M.  Sabatier  in  the  Encyclopedic  des  sciences  religieuses,  t. 
vii.  pp.  173-195  (1879),  to  the  sixth  volume  of  M.  Renan's  book  on  the 
Origines  du  christianisme  (1879),  and  to  the  last  edition  of  Hase's  work, 
Geschichte  Jem  (1876). 

The  result  of  this  renewed  study  has  been  in  my  case  the  ever  more 
firm  scientific  conviction  of  the  authenticity  of  the  writing  which  the 
Church  has  handed  down  to  us  under  the  name  of  John.  There  is  a 
conviction  of  a  different  nature  which  forms  itself  in  the  heart  on  the 
simple  reading  of  such  a  book.  This  conviction  does  not  grow  up;  it 
is  immediate,  and  consequently  complete,  from  the  first  moment.  It 
resembles  confidence  and  love  at  first  sight,  that  decisive  impression  to 
the  integrity  of  which  thirty  years  of  common  life  and  mutual  devotion 
add  nothing. 

Scientific  study  cannot  form  a  bond  like  this ;  what  it  can  do  is  only 
to  remove  the  hostile  pressure  which  threatens  to  loosen  or  to  break  it. 
Truly,  I  can  say  that  I  have  never  felt  this  scientific  assurance  so  con- 
firmed as  after  this-  new  examination  of  the  proofs  on  which  it  rests  and 
the  reasons  recently  alleged  against  it. 

The  reader  will  judge  whether  this  is  an  amiable  illusion ;  whether 
the  conclusion  formulated  at  the  end  of  this  volume  is  indeed  the  result 
of  a  profound  and  impartial  study  of  the  facts,  or  whether  it  has  only 
been  reached  because  it  was  desired  in  advance.  It  seems  to  me  that  I 
can,  with  yet  more  confidence  than  before,  submit  my  book  to  this  test. 

May  all  that  which  passed  from  the  heart  of  Jesus  into  the  heart  and 
the  writing  of  John  communicate  itself  abundantly  to  my  readers,  so 
that  the  wish  of  the  Holy  Apostle  may  be  accomplished  in  them :  "  We 
write  these  things  unto  you,  that  your  joy  may  be  full." 

Neuchdlel,  June  29th,  1881. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


Page 

Preface  to  the  American  Edition,        .        .        .       .      .        .  iii 

Preface  to  the  Third  French  Edition, vii 

Preliminaries, 1 

Chap.  I.     The  Evangelical  Literature, 3 

Chap.  II.  History  of  the  Johannean  Discussion, 8 

The  Adversaries, 8 

The  Defenders,            20 

The  Intermediate  Positions, 26 

Conclusion, 27 

Book  I.    The  Apostle  St.  John, 29 

In  his  father's  house, 29 

As  a  follower  of  Jesus, 30 

At  the  head  of  the  Judseo-Christian  Church,      ....  35 

In  Asia  Minor, 38 

His  Death, 51 

Book  II.   The  Fourth  Gospel, -54 

Chap.  I.     Analysis, 54 

Chap.  II.  Characteristics, 66 

\  1.  The  narrative, 66 

I.  The  governing  idea, 66 

II.  The  facts 68 

III.  The  discourses, 93 

A.  Relation  of  the  idea  of  the  Logos  to  the  discourses  and 

the  narrative, 94 

B.  Objections  against   the   historical  character   of  the   dis- 

courses,       .                97 

Internal  difficulties,             98 

Relation  of  the  discourses  to  the  Prologue  and  I  John,  .  104 

Differences  from  the  Synoptics, 108 

C.  The  Person  of  Jesus, 123 

Conclusion, -        .127 

2  2.  Relation  to  the  Old  Testament, 127 

\  3.  The  style, 134 

Conclusion, 138 

iz 


TABLE   OF   CONTEXTS 


Book  III. 
Chap.  I. 


The  Origin, 
The  Time,       . 
From  160-170,    . 
From  130-155, 
From  110-125,  . 
Result,    . 


Chap.  II. 


The  Author, 
\  1.  Testimonies,  . 
\  2.  Objections, 
\  3.  Internal  Proof, 
\  4.  Contrary  Hypotheses, 


Chap.  III.  The  Place,      . 

Chap.  IV.  The  Occasion  and  Aim, 


Summary  and  Conclusion,   . 
Commentary. — Chapters  I. — V.,      • 
Introductory  Suggestions  by  the  American  Editor, 
Additional  Notes  by  the  American  Editor,  , 


Page 
139 
140 
141 
147 
157 
167 

167 
168 
171 
197 
204 

208 

209 

216 

220 
493 
513 


[The  Authorized  English  Version  and  the  Revised  Version  are  designated  in 
the  Additional  Notes  by  the  letters  A.  V.  and  R.  V.] 


PRELIMINARIES. 


VERY  book  is  a  mystery  of  which  the  author  alone  has  the 
secret.  The  preface  may,  no  doubt,  lift  a  corner  of  the  veil ; 
but  there  are  books  without  a  preface,  and  the  writer  may  not 
tell  the  whole  truth.  It  belongs  to  literary  criticism,  as  it  is 
understood  at  the  present  day,1  to  solve  the  problem  offered  to  the  world 
by  every  work  which  is  worthy  of  attention.  For  a  book  is  not  fully  intel- 
ligible except  so  far  as  the  obscurity  of  its  origin  is  dissipated. 

The  science  which  is  commonly  called  Sacred  Criticism  or  Introduction 
to  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament  was  instituted  by  the  Church,  to  fulfill  this 
task  with  regard  to  the  books  which  contain  the  object  of  its  faith  and  the 
standards  of  its  development.  By  placing  in  a  clear  light  the  origin  of 
each  one  of  these  writings  and  thus  revealing  its  primal  thought,  it  has 
as  its  office  to  shed  upon  their  whole  contents  the  ray  of  light  which 
illumines  their  minutest  details. 

According  to  Schleiermacher,  the  ideal  of  Sacred  Criticism  consists  in 
putting  the  present  reader  in  the  place  of  the  original  reader,2  by  procur- 
ing for  him  through  the  artifice  of  science,  the  preliminary  knowledge 
which  the  latter,  as  a  matter  of  course,  possessed.  However  valuable  a 
result  like  this  may  be,  it  seems  to  me  that  criticism  should  propose  to 
itself  a  yet  more  elevated  aim.  Its  true  mission  is  to  transport  the  reader 
into  the  very  mind  of  the  author,  at  the  time  when  he  conceived  or  elab- 
orated his  work,  and  to  cause  him  to  be  present  at  the  composition  of  the 
book  almost  after  the  manner  of  the  spectator  who  is  present  at  the  cast- 
ing of  a  bell,  and  who,  after  having  beheld  the  metal  in  a  state  of  fusion 
in  the  furnace,  sees  the  torrent  of  fire  flow  into  the  mold  in  which  it  is 
to  receive  its  permanent  form.  This  ideal  includes  that  of  Schleier- 
macher. For  one  of  the  essential  elements  present  to  the  mind  of  the 
author  at  the  time  when  he  prepares  his  work,  is  certainly  the  idea  which 

i  By  Sainte-Beuve,  for  example.  »  Einleitung  ins  N.  T.,  herausg.  von  Woldc,  p.  7. 

1 


2  '  PRELIMINARIES. 

he  forms  of  his  readers,  and  of  their  condition  and  wants.    To  identify  one- 
self with  him  is,  therefore,  at  the  same  time  to  identify  oneself  with  them. 

To  attain  this  object,  or,  at  least,  to  approach  it  as  nearly  as  possible, 
Criticism  makes  use  of  two  sorts  of  means :  1.  Those  which  it  borrows 
from  the  history,  and  especially  from  the  literary  history,  of  the  time 
which  witnessed  the  publication  of  the  sacred  writings,  or  which  followed 
it ;  2.  Those  which  it  derives  from  the  book  itself. 

Among  the  former  we  rank,  first  of  all,  the  positive  statements  which 
Jewish  or  Christian  antiquity  has  transmitted  to  us  respecting  the  com- 
position of  one  or  another  of  our  Biblical  writings;  then,  the  quotations 
or  reminiscences  of  any  passages  of  these  books,  which  are  met  with  in 
subsequent  writers,  and  which  prove  their  existence  and  influence  at  a 
certain  date;  finally,  the  historical  facts  to  which  these  writings  have 
stood  in  the  relation  of  cause  or  effect.    These  are  the  external  data. 

To  the  second  class  belong  all  the  indications,  contained  in  the  book 
itself,  respecting  the  person  of  its  author,  and  respecting  the  circumstances 
in  which  he  labored  and  the  motive  which  impelled  him  to  write.  These 
are  the  internal  data. 

To  combine  these  two  classes  of  data,  for  the  purpose  of  drawing  from 
them,  if  possible,  a  harmonious  result — such  is  the  work  of  Criticism. 

This  is  the  task  which  we  undertake  with  regard  to  one  of  the  most  im- 
portant books  of  the  New  Testament  and  of  the  whole  Bible.  Luther  is 
reported  to  have  said  that  if  a  tyrant  succeeded  in  destroying  the  Holy 
Scriptures  and  only  a  single  copy  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  and  of 
the  Gospel  of  John  escaped  him,  Christianity  would  be  saved.  He  spoke 
truly;  for  the  fourth  Gospel  presents  the  object  of  the  Christian  faith  in 
its  most  perfect  splendor,  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  describes  the 
way  of  faith  which  leads  to  this  object,  with  an  incomparable  clearness. 
What  need  of  more  to  preserve  Christ  to  the  world  and  to  give  birth  ever 
anew  to-the,  Church  ? 

The  following  will  be  the  course  of  our  study.  After  having  cast  a  gen- 
eral glance  at  the  formation  of  our  Gospel  literature,  we  shall  trace  the 
course  of  the  discussions  relative  to  the  composition  of  the  fourth  Gospel. 
These  will  be  the  subjects  of  two  preliminary  chapters. 

Then,  we  shall  enter  upon  the  study  itself,  which  will  include  the  fol- 
lowing subjects : 

1.  The  life  of  the  apostle  to  whom  the  fourth  Gospel  is  generally 
ascribed. 

2.  The  analysis  and  distinctive  characteristics  of  this  writing.  ^ 


GOSPEL   LITERATURE.  3 

3.  The  circumstances  of  its  composition : 
Its  date ; 

The  place  of  its  origin ; 
Its  author ; 

The  aim  which  the  author  pursued  in  composing  it. 
After  having  studied  each  of  these  points,  as  separately  as  possible  from 
one  another,  we  shall  bring  together  the  particular  results  thus  obtained 
in  a  general  view,  which,  if  we  have  not  taken  a  wrong  path,  will  offer  the 
solution  of  the  problem. 

Jesus  has  promised  to  His  Church  the  Spirit  of  truth  to  lead  it  into  all 
the  truth.    It  is  under  the  direction  of  this  guide  that  we  place  ourselves. 


CHAPTER  FIRST. 

A  GLANCE  AT  THE  FORMATION  OF  THE  GOSPEL  LITERATURE. 

Our  first  three  Gospels  certainly  have  a  common  origin,  not  only  in 
that  all  three  relate  one  and  the  same  history,  but  also  by  reason  of  the 
fact  that  an  elaboration  of  this  history,  of  some  sort,  was  already  in  exist- 
ence at  the  time  of  their  composition,  and  has  stamped  with  a  common 
impress  the  three  narratives.  Indeed,  the  striking  agreement  between 
them  which  is  easily  observed  both  in  the  general  plan  and  in  certain 
series  of  identical  accounts,  and  finally  in  numerous  clauses  which  are 
found  exactly  the  same  in  two  of  these  writings,  or  in  all  the  three — this 
general  and  particular  agreement  renders  it  impossible  to  question  that, 
before  being  thus  recorded,  the  history  of  Jesus  had  already  been  cast  in  a 
mold  where  it  had  received  the  more  or  less  fixed  form  in  which  we  find 
it  in  our  three  narratives.  Many  think  that  this  primitive  gospel  type 
consisted  of  a  written  document — either  one  of  our  three  Gospels,  of  which 
the  other  two  were  only  a  free  reproduction,  or  one  or  even  two  writings, 
now  lost,  from  which  our  evangelists,  all  three  of  them,  drew.  This  hypo- 
thesis of  written  sources  has  been,  and  is  still  presented  under  the  most 
varied  forms.  We  do  not  think  that  in  any  form  it  can  be  accepted  ;  for 
it  always  leads  to  the  adoption  of  the  view,  that  the  later  writer  sometimes 
willfully  altered  his  model  by  introducing  changes  of  real  gravity,  at  other 
times  adopted  the  course  of  copying  with  the  utmost  literalness,  and  that 
while  frequently  applying  these  two  opposite  methods  in  one  and  the 
same  verse ;  and,  finally,  at  still  other  times,  that  he  made  the  text  which 
he  used  undergo  a  multitude  of  modifications  which  are  ridiculous  by 


4  PRELIMINARIES. 

reason  of  being  insignificant.  Let  any  one  consult  a  Synopsis,1  and  the 
thing  will  be  obvious.  Is  it  psychologically  conceivable  that  serious, 
believing  writers,  convinced  of  the  supreme  importance  of  the  subject  of 
which  they  were  treating,  adopted  such  methods  with  regard  to  it ;  and, 
above  all,  that  they  applied  them  to  the  reproduction  of  the  very  teach- 
ings of  the  Lord  Jesus  ? — Common  as,  even  at  the  present  day,  this  manner 
of  explaining  the  relation  between  our  three  Gospels  is,  we  are  convinced 
that  Criticism  will  finally  renounce  it  as  a  moral  impossibility. 

The  simple  and  natural  solution  of  the  problem  appears  to  us  to  be 
indicated  by  the  book  of  Acts,  in  the  passage  where  it  speaks  to  us  of  the 
teaching  of  the  apostles,2  as  one  of  the  foundations  on  which  the  Church  of 
Jerusalem  was  built  (ii.  42).  In  this  primitive  apostolic  teaching,  the 
accounts  of  the  life  and  death  Of  Jesus  surely  occupied  the  first  place. 
These  narratives,  daily  repeated  by  the  apostles,  and  by  the  evangelists 
instructed  in  their  school,  must  speedily  have  taken  a  form  more  or  less 
fixed  and  settled,  not  only  as  to  the  tenor  of  each  account,  but  also  as  to 
the  joining  together  of  several  accounts  in  one  group,  which  formed  ordi- 
narily the  subject-matter  of  a  single  teaching.  What  we  here  affirm  is 
not  a  pure  hypothesis.  St.  Luke  tells  us,  in  the  preface  of  his  Gospel  (the 
most  ancient  document  respecting  this  subject  which  we  possess),  of  the 
first  written  accounts  of  the  evangelic  facts  as  composed  "  according  to  the 
story  which  they  transmitted  to  us  who  were  witnesses  of  them  from  the 
beginning,  and  who  became  ministers  of  the  Word."  These  witnesses  and 
first  ministers  can  only  have  been  the  apostles.  Their  accounts  conveyed 
to  the  Church  by  oral  teaching  had  passed,  therefore,  just  as  they  were, 
into  the  writings  of  those  who  first  wrote  them  out.  The  pronoun  us 
employed  by  Luke,  shows  that  he  ranked  himself  among  the  writers  who 
were  instructed  by  the  oral  testimony  of  the  apostles. 

The  primitive  apostolic  tradition  is  thus  the  type,  at  once  fixed,  and  yet 
within  certain  limits  malleable,  which  has  stamped  with  its  ineffaceable 
imprint  our  first  three  Gospels.  In  this  way  a  satisfactory  explanation  is 
afforded,  on  the  one  side,  of  the  general  and  particular  resemblances 
which  make  these  three  writings,  as  it  were,  one  and  the  same  narrative ; 
and,  on  the  other,  of  the  differences  which  we  observe  among  them,  from 
those  which  are  most  considerable  to  those  which  are  most  insignificant. 

These  three  works  are,  thus,  three  workings-over — wrought  independently 
of  one  another — of  the  primitive  tradition  formulated  in  the  midst  of  the 
Palestinian  churches,  and  ere  long  repeated  in  all  the  countries  of  the 

;   'An  edition  presenting  the  three  texts  in  three  parallel  columns.     SAiJaxq  ruv  o.ito<tt6\uv. 


GOSPEL  LITERATURE.  5 

world.  They  are  three  branches  proceeding  from  the  same  trunk,  but 
branches  which  have  grown  out  under  different  conditions  and  in  different 
directions ;  and  herein  lies  the  explanation  of  the  peculiar  physiognomy 
of  each  of  the  three  books. 
^  In  the  first,  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew,  we  find  the  matter  of  the  preach- 
ing of  the  Twelve  at  Jerusalem  preserved  in  the  form  which  approaches 
nearest  to  the  primitive  type.  This  fact  will  appear  quite  simple,  if  we 
hold  that  this  writing  was  designed  for  the  Jewish  people,  and  therefore 
precisely  for  the  circle  of  readers  with  a  view  to  which  the  oral  preaching 
had  been  originally  formulated.  The  dominant  idea  in  the  Palestinian 
preaching  must  have  been  that  of  the  Messianic  dignity  of  Jesus.  This  is 
also  the  thought  which  forms  the  unity  of  the  first  Gospel.  It  is  inscribed 
at  the  beginning  of  the  book  as  its  programme.1  The  formula :  that  it 
might  be  fulfilled,  which  recurs,  like  a  refrain,  throughout  the  entire  narra- 
tive, recalls  this  primal  idea  at  every  moment ;  finally  it  breaks  forth  into 
the  full  light  of  day  in  the  conclusion,  which  brings  us  to  contemplate  the 
full  realization  of  the  Messianic  destiny  of  the  Lord.'2  With  what  purpose 
was  this  redaction  of  the  primitive  apostolic  testimony  published  ?  Evi- 
dently the  author  desired  to  address  a  last  appeal  to  that  people,  whom 
their  own  unbelief  was  leading  to  ruin.  This  book  was  composed,  there- 
fore, at  the  time  when  the  final  catastrophe  was  preparing.  A  word  of 
Jesus  (Matt.  xxiv.  15)  in  which  He  enjoins  upon  His  disciples  to  flee  to 
the  other  side  of  the  Jordan  as  soon  as  the  war  should  break  out,  is 
reported  by  the  author  with  a  significant  nota  bene,3  which  confirms  the 
date  that  we  have  just  indicated. 

Already  twenty  years  before  this,  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  had 
passed  beyond  the  boundaries  of  Palestine  and  penetrated  the  Gentile 
world.  Numerous  churches,  almost  all  of  them  composed  of  a  small 
nucleus  of  Jews,  and  a  multitude  of  Gentiles  grouped  around  them,  had 
arisen  at  the  preaching  of  the  Apostle  Paul  and  his  fellow-laborers.  This 
immense  work  could  not  in  the  end  dispense  with  the  solid  foundation 
which  had  been  laid  at  the  beginning  by  the  Twelve  and  the  evangelists 
in  Palestine  and  Syria:  the  connected  narrative  of  the  acts,  the  teachings, 
the  death  and  the  resurrection  of  Jesus.  In  this  fact  lay  the  imperative 
want  which  gave  birth  to  our  third  Gospel,  drawn  up  by  one  of  the  most 

I  Matt  i.  1:    "Genealogy  of  Jesus   Christ  8"  When  ye  shall  see  the  abomination  of  rtes- 

{Messiah)."  olation  .  .  .  standing  in  the  holy  place— let 

*xxviii.  18:   "All  power  hath  been  given  him  that  readpth  understand!  then  let  them 

unto  me  in  heaven  and  on  earth."  that  are  in  Judea  flee  unto  the  mountains." 


6  PRELIMINARIES. 

eminent  companions  of  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  St.  Luke.  The 
Messianic  dignity  of  Jesus,  and  the  argument  drawn  from  the  prophecies, 
had  no  more,  in  the  estimation  of  the  Gentiles,  the  same  importance  as 
with  the  Jews:  all  this  is  omitted  in  the  third  Gospel.  It  was  as  the 
Saviour  of  humanity  that  Jesus  needed  especially  be  presented  to  them ; 
with  this  purpose,  Luke,  after  having  gathered  the  most  exact  informa- 
tion, sets  in  relief,  in  his  representation  of  our  Lord's  earthly  ministry, 
everything  that  had  marked  the  salvation  which  He  introduced  as  a 
gratuitous  and  universal  salvation.  Hence  the  agreement,  which  is  so  pro- 
found, between  this  Gospel  and  the  writings  of  St.  Paul.  What  the 
former  traces  out  historically,  the  latter  expounds  theoretically.  But, 
notwithstanding  these  differences  as  compared  with  the  work  of  Matthew, 
the  Gospel  of  Luke  rests  always,  as  the  author  himself  declares  in  his 
preface,  on  the  apostolic  tradition  formulated  at  the  beginning  by  the 
Twelve.  Only  he  has  sought  to  complete  it  and  to  give  it  a  more  strict 
arrangement1  with  a  view  to  cultivated  Gentiles,  such  as  Theophilus, 
who  demanded  a  more  consecutive  and  profound  teaching. 

Was  a  third  form  possible  ?  Yes  ;  this  traditional  type,  preserved  in  its 
rigid  and  potent  originality  by  the  first  evangelist  with  a  view  to  the 
Jewish  people,  enriched  and  completed  by  the  third  with  a  view  to  the 
churches  of  the  Gentile  nations,  might  be  published  anew  in  its  primitive 
form,  as  in  the  first  Gospel,  but  this  time  with  a  view  to  Gentile  readers, 
as  in  the  third, — and  such,  in  fact,  is  the  Gospel  of  Mark.  This  work  does 
not  have  any  of  the  precious  supplements  which  that  of  Luke  had  added 
to  the  Palestinian  preaching ;  in  this  point  it  is  allied  to  the  first  Gospel. 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  omits  the  numerous  references  to  the  prophe- 
cies and  most  of  the  long  discourses  of  Jesus  addressed  to  the  people  and 
their  rulers,  which  give  to  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  its  so  decidedly  Jewish 
character ;  besides,  it  adds  detailed  explanations  respecting  the  Jewish 
customs  which  are  not  found  in  Matthew,  and  which  are  evidently 
intended  for  Gentile  readers.  Thus  allied,  therefore,  to  Luke  by  its 
destination  and  to  Matthew  by  its  contents,  it  is,  as  it  were,  the  connect- 
ing link  between  the  two  preceding  forms.  This  intermediate  position  is 
made  clear  by  the  first  word  of  the  work  :  "Gospel  of  Jesus,  the  Christ 
(Messiah),  Son  of  God."  The  title  of  Christ  recalls  the  special  relation  of 
Jesus  to  the  Jewish  people ;  that  of  Son  of  God,  which  marks  the  myste- 

1  i.  3:  "I  have  thought  it  fit,  after  having       know  the  certainty  of  the  instructions  which 
accurately  traced  the  course  of  all  things,  to       thou  hast  received." 
write  unto  thee  in  order,  that  thou  mightest 


GOSPEL   LITERATURE.  7 

rious  relation  between  God  and  this  unique  man,  raises  this  being  to  such 
a  height  that  His  appearance  and  His  work  must  necessarily  have  for 
their  object   th*e   entire  human  race.    To   this   first  word  of  the  book 
answers  also  the  last,  which  shows  us  Jesus  continuing  from  heaven  to 
discharge  throughout  the  whole  world  that  function  of  celestial  mes- 
senger, of  divine  evangelist,  which  He  had  begun  to  exercise  on  the 
earth.     Let  us  notice  also  a  distinctive  characteristic  of  this  narrative  :  in 
each  picture,  so  to  speak,  there  are  found  strokes  of  the  pencil  which 
belong  to   it  peculiarly  and  which   betray  an  eye-witness.      They  are 
always,  at  the  foundation,  the  traditional  accounts,  but  evidently  trans- 
mitted by  a  witness  who  had  himself  taken  part  in  the  scenes  related,  and 
who,  when  recounting  them  by  word  of  mouth,  quite  naturally  mingled  in 
them  points  of  detail  suggested  by  the  vividness  of  his  own  recollections. 
As  such  do  our  first  three  Gospels  present  themselves  to  attentive 
readers— being  called  Synoptic  because  the  three  narratives  may  without 
much  difficulty  be  placed,  with  a  view  to  a  comparison  with  one  another, 
in  three  parallel  columns.     The  date  of  their  composition  must  have 
been  nearly  the  same  (between  the  years  60  and  70).     Indeed,  the  first  is, 
as  it  were,  the  last  apostolic  summons  addressed  to  the  people  of  Israel 
before  their  destruction ;  the  third  is  designed  to  give  to  the  preaching  of 
St.  Paul  in  the  Gentile  world  its  historical  basis ;  and  the  second  is  the 
reproduction  of  the  preachings  of  a  witness  carrying  to  the  Gentile  world 
the  primitive  Palestinian  Gospel  proclamation.     If  the  composition  of 
these  three  writings  really  took  place  at  nearly  the  same  time  and  in 
different  countries,  this  fact  accords  with  the  opinion  expressed  above,  that 
the  writings  were  composed  each  one  independently  of  the  two  others. 

Did  the  Church  possess  in  these  three  monuments  of  the  primitive 
popular  preaching  of  the  Gospel  that  by  which  it  could  fully  answer  the 
wants  of  believers  who  had  not  known  the  Lord  ?  Must  there  not  have  ; 
been  in  the  ministry  of  Jesus  a  large  number  of  elements  which  the  ' 
apostles  had  not  been  able  to  introduce  into  their  missionary  preaching? 
Had  they  not,  by  reason  of  the  elementary,  and  in  some  sort  catecheti- 
cal nature  of  that  teaching  of  the  earliest  times,  been  led  to  eliminate 
many  of  the  sayings  of  Jesus  which  reached  beyond  such  a  level  and 
rose  to  a  height  where  only  the  most  advanced  minds  could  follow  Him  ? 
This  is,  in  itself,  very  probable.  We  have  already  seen  that  a  mass  of 
picturesque  details,  which  are  wanting  in  Matthew,  more  vividly  color 
the  ancient  popular  tradition  in  Mark.  The  important  additions  in  Luke 
prove  still  more  eloquently  how  the  richness  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus 


8  PRELIMINARIES. 

passed  beyond  the  measure  of  the  primitive  oral  tradition.  Why  may 
not  an  immediate  witness  of  Jesus'  ministry  have  felt  himself  called  to 
rise  once  above  all  these  traditional  accounts,  to  draw  directly  from  the 
source  of  his  own  recollections,  and,  while  omitting  all  the  scenes  already 
sufficiently  known,  which  had  passed  into  the  ordinary  narrative,  to  trace, 
at  a  single  stroke,  the  picture  of  the  moments  which  were  most  marked, 
most  impressive  to  his  own  heart,  in  the  ministry  of  his  Master?  There 
was  not  in  this,  as  we  can  well  understand,  any  deliberate  selection,  any 
artificial  distribution.  The  division  of  the  evangelic  matter  was  the 
natural  result  of  the  historical  circumstances  in  which  the  founding  of 
the  Church  was  accomplished. 

This  course  of  things  is  so  simple  that  it  is,  in  some  sort,  its  own  justi- 
fication. The  apostolic  origin  of  the  fourth  Gospel  may  be  disputed,  but 
it  cannot  be  denied  by  any  one  that  the  situation  indicated  is  probable, 
and  the  part  assigned  to  the  author  of  such  a  writing  natural.  It  remain8 
to  be  discovered  whether  in  this  case  the  probable  is  real,  and  the  natural 
true.    This  is  precisely  the  question  which  we  have  to  elucidate. 


CHAPTER  SECOND. 


THE  DISCUSSIONS  RELATING  TO  THE  AUTHENTICITY  OF 
THE   FOURTH   GOSPEL. 

In  the  rapid  review  which  is  to  follow,  we  might  unite  in  a  single  series 
arranged  chronologically  all  the  writings,  to  whatever  tendency  they 
belong,  in  which  the  subject  which  occupies  us  has  been  treated.  But 
it  seems  preferable  to  us,  with  a  view  to  clearness,  to  divide  the  authors 
whom  we  have  to  enumerate  into  three  distinct  series :  1.  The  partisans 
of  the  entire  spuriousness  of  our  Gospel ;  2.  The  defenders  of  its  absolute 
authenticity ;  3..  The  advocates  of  some  intermediate  position.1 

I. 

Until  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  century,  the  question  had  not  even  been 
raised.  It  was  known  that,  in  the  primitive  Church,  a  small  sect,  of 
which  Irenseus  and  Epiphanius  make  mention,  ascribed  the  fourth  Gospel 
to  Corinthus,  the  adversary  of  the  Apostle  John  at  Ephesus.      But  the 

>  It  is  evident  that  this  division  cannot  be  this  list  wc  have,  in  this  new  edition,  taken 

fixed  with  absolute  strictness,  so  varied  are  advantage  of  the  excellent  work  of  Mr.  Cas- 

the  different  ways  of  viewing  the  subject.—  par  Rene  Gregory  (Leipsic,  1875),  published 

In  order  to  the  revision  and  completion  of  as  a  supplement  to  Luthardt's  Commentary. 


THE   DISCUSSION — THE   ADVERSARIES.  9 

science  of  theologians,  as  well  as  the  feeling  of  the  Church,  confirmed 
the  conviction  of  the  first  Christian  communities  and  their  leaders,  who 
saw  in  it  unanimously  the  work  of  that  apostle. 

Some  attacks  of  little  importance,  proceeding  from  the  English  Deistic 
party,  which  flourished  two  centuries  ago,  opened  the  conflict.  But  it 
did  not  break  out  seriously  until  a  century  later.  In  1792,  the  English 
theologian,  Evanson,  raised  note-worthy  objections,  for  the  first  time, 
against  the  general  conviction.1  He  rested  especially  on  the  differences 
between  our  Gospel  and  the  Apocalypse.  He  ascribed  the  composition 
of  the  former  of  these  books  to  some  Platonic  philosopher  of  the  second 
century. 

The  discussion  was  not  long  in  being  transplanted  to  Germany.  Four 
years  after  Evanson,  Eckermann 2  contended  against  the  authenticity,  while 
yet  agreeing  that  certain  Johannean  redactions  must  have  formed  the 
first  foundation  of  our  Gospel.  These  notes  had  been  amalgamated  with 
the  historical  traditions  which  the  author  had  gathered  from  the  lips  of 
John. — Eckermann  retracted  in  1807.3 

Several  German  theologians  continued  the  conflict  which  was  entered 
upon  at  this  time.  The  contradictions  between  this  Gospel  and  the 
other  three  were  alleged,  also  the  exaggerated  character  of  the  miracles, 
the  metaphysical  tone  of  the  discourses,  the  evident  affinities  between  the 
theology  of  the  author  and  that  of  Philo,  the  scarcity  of  traces  in  litera- 
ture proving  the  existence  of  this  writing  in  the  second  century.*  From 
1801,  the  cause  of  the  authenticity  seemed  already  so  far  compromised 
that  a  German  superintendent,  Vogel,  believed  himself  able  to  summon 
the  evangelist  John  and  his  interpreters  to  the  bar  of  the  last  judgment.5 
However,  it  was  yet  only  the  first  phase  of  the  discussion,  the  time  of 
the  skirmishes  which  form  the  prelude  of  great  pitched  battles. 

It  was  also  a  German  superintendent  who  opened  the  second  period  of 
the  discussion.  In  a  work  which  became  celebrated  and  was  published  in 
1820,  Bretschneider  brought  together  all  the  objections  previously  raised  and 
added  to  them  new  ones.6  He  especially  developed  with  force  the  objection 
drawn  from  the  contradictions  in  our  Gospel  as  compared  with  the  three  pre- 
ceding ones,  both  with  reference  to  the  form  of  the  discourses  and  in  respect 
to  the  very  substance  of  the  Christological  teaching.    The  fourth  Gospel 

1  The   dissonance   of  the  four  generally  re-       (1812),  etc. 

teived  evangelists,  etc.  »  Der  Evangelist  Johannes  und  seine  Ausleger 

2  Theologische  Beitrdge,  vol.  v.  1796.  von  dem  jiingsten  Gcrieht. 

*  Erklurung  aller  dunkeln  Stellen  des.  N.  T.  *  Probabilia  de  evangelii  et  epistolarum  Jo- 

*Horst  (1803),  Cludius  (1808),  Ballenstadt       hannis  apostoli  indole  et  origine. 


10  PRELIMINARIES. 

must,  according  to  his  view,  have  been  the  work  of  a  presbyter  of  Gentile, 
probably  of  Alexandrian  origin,  who  lived  in  the  first  half  of  the  second 
century.  This  learned  and  vigorous  attack  of  Bretschneider  called  forth 
numerous  replies,  of  which  we  shall  speak  later,  and  following  upon 
which  this  theologian  declared  (in  1824)  that  the  replies  which  had  been 
made  to  his  book  were  "  more  than  sufficient," '  and  (in  1828)  that  he  had 
attained  the  end  which  he  had  proposed  to  himself:  that  of  calling  out  a 
more  searching  demonstration  of  the  authenticity  of  the  fourth  Gospel.' 

But  the  seeds  sown  by  such  a  work  could  not  be  uprooted  by  these 
rather  equivocal  retractions,  which  had  a  purely  personal  value.  From 
1824,  the  cause  of  the  unauthenticity  was  pleaded  anew  by  Rettig?  The 
author  of  the  Gospel  is  a  disciple  of  John.  The  apostle  himself  cer- 
tainly was  not  so  far  wanting  in  modesty  as  to  designate  himself  as  "  the 
disciple  whom  Jesus  loved."  De  Wette  in  his  Introduction  published  for 
the  first  time  in  1826,  without  positively  taking  sides  against  the  authen- 
ticity, confessed  the  impossibility  of  demonstrating  it  by  unanswerable' 
proofs.  In  the  same  year,  Reuterdahl,  following  the  footsteps  of  Vogel, 
assailed  the  tradition  of  John's  sojourn  in  Asia  Minor  as  fictitious.* 

The  publication  of  Strauss'  Life  of  Jesus,  in  1835,  had,  at  first,  a  much 
more  decisive  influence  upon  the  criticism  of  the  history  of  Jesus  than 
upon  that  of  the  documents  in  which  this  history  has  been  transmitted  to 
us.  Evidently  Strauss  had  not  devoted  himself  to  a  special  study  of  the 
origin  of  these  latter.  He  started,  as  concerning  the  Synoptics,  from  the 
two  theories  of  Gieseler  and  Griesbach,  according  to  which  our  Gospels 
are  the  redaction  of  the  apostolic  tradition,  which,  after  having  for  a  long 
time  circulated  in  a  purely  oral  form,  at  length  slowly  established  itself 
in  our  Synoptics  (Gieseler) ;  and  this,  first,  in  the  redactions  of  Matthew 
and  Luke,  then,  in  that  of  Mark,  which  is  only  a  compilation  of  the  two 
others  (Griesbach).  As  to  John,  he  allowed  as  valid  the  reasons  alleged 
by  Bretschneider:  insufficient  attestation  in  the  primitive  Church,  con- 
tents contradictory  of  those  of  the  first  three  gospels,  etc.  And  if,  in  his 
third  edition,  in  1838,  he  acknowledged  that  the  authenticity  was  less  in- 
defensible to  his  view,  he  was  not  slow  in  retracting  this  concession  in  the 
following  edition  (1840).  Indeed,  the  least  evasion  in  regard  to  this  point 
shook  his  entire  hypothesis  of  mythical  legends.  The  axiom  which  lies 
at  its  foundation:    The  ideal  does  not  exhaust  itself  in  one  individual, 

•In    Tzac  h  i  rner'a  Magazin  fur   christliche  3  Ephemerides  exegeiico-thcologicce,  I.,  p.  62  ff. 

Prediger.  4  jn  his  work  de  Fontibus  historice  Eusebi- 

*  Uandbuch  der  Dogmatik,  pp.  viii.  and  2C8.  ance. 


THE   DISCUSSION — THE   ADVERSARIES.  11 

would  be  proved  false,  provided  that  the  fourth  Gospel  contained,  in  how- 
ever small  a  measure,  the  narrative  of  an  eye-witness.  Nevertheless, 
the  immense  commotion  produced  in  the  learned  world  by  Strauss'  work 
soon  reacted  upon  the  criticism  of  the  Gospels. 

Christian  Hermann  Weisse  drew  attention  especially  to  the  close  connec- 
tion between  the  criticism  of  the  history  of  Jesus  and  that  of  the  writings 
in  which  it  has  been  preserved.1  He  contended  against  the  authenticity 
of  our  Gospel,  but  not  without  recognizing  in  it  a  true  apostolic  founda- 
tion. The  Apostle  John,  with  the  design  of  fixing  the  image  of  his  Mas- 
ter, which,  in  proportion  as  the  reality  was  farther  removed  from  him, 
came  to  be  more  and  more  indefinite  in  his  mind,  and  in  order  to  give 
himself  a  distinct  account  of  the  impression  which  he  had  preserved  of 
the  person  of  Jesus,  had  drawn  up  certain  "  studies  "  which,  when  ampli- 
fied, became  the  discourses  of  the  fourth  Gospel.  To  these  more  or  lesa 
authentic  parts,  a  historical  framework  which  was  completely  fictitious 
was  afterwards  adapted.  We  can  understand  how,  from  this  point  of 
view,  Weisse  was  able  to  defend  the  authenticity  of  the  first  Epistle  of 
John. 

At  this  juncture  there  occurred  in  the  criticism  of  the  fourth  Gospel  a 
revolution  like  to  that  which  was  wrought  at  the  same  time  in  the  mode 
of  looking  at  the  first  three.  Wilke  then  endeavored  to  prove  that  the 
differences  which  distinguish  the  Synoptical  narratives  from  one  another 
were  not,  as  had  been  always  believed,  simple  involuntary  accidents,  but 
that  it  was  necessary  to  recognize  in  them  modifications  introduced  by 
each  author,  in  a  deliberate  and  intentional  way,  into  the  narrative  of  his 
predecessor  or  predecessors.2  Bruno  Bauer  extended  this  mode  of  explain- 
ing the  matter  to  the  fourth  Gospel.3  He  claimed  that  the  Johannean 
narrative  was  not  by  any  means,  as  the  treatise  of  Strauss  supposed,  the 
depository  of  a  simple  legendary  tradition,  but  that  this  story  was  the 
product  of  an  individual  conception,  the  reflective  work  of  a  Christian 
thinker  and  poet,  who  was  perfectly  conscious  of  his  procedure.  The 
history  of  Jesus  was  thus  reduced,  according  to  Ebrard's  witty  expression, 
to  a  single  line :  "At  that  time  it  came  to  pass  .  .  .  that  nothing  came  to 
pass." 

In  the  same  year,  L'utzelberger  attacked,  in  a  more  thoroughly  searching 
way  than  Reuterdahl,  the  tradition  as  to  the  residence  of  John  in  Asia 

1  Die   evangelische    Oeschichte    kritisch   und  *  Der  Vrevangelist,  183S. 

philosophisch  bearbcitet,  1838.    Die  Evangelieiv-  s  Kritik  der  evangel.  Oeschichte  des  Johannes, 

Frage,  1850.  1840. 


12  PRELIMINARIES. 

Minor.1  The  author  of  our  Gospel  was,  in  his  view,  a  Samaritan,  whose 
parents  had  emigrated  to  Mesopotamia,  between  130  and  135,  at  the 
epoch  of  the  new  revolt  of  the  Jews  against  the  Romans,  and  he  com- 
posed this  Gospel  at  Edessa.  The  "  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved  "  was  not 
John,  but  Andrew. — In  a  celebrated  article,  Fischer  tried  to  prove,  from 
the  use  of  the  term  oi  'lovdaioi  in  our  Gospel,  that  its  author  could  not  be 
of  Jewish  origin.* 

We  arrive  here  at  the  third  and  last  period  of  this  prolonged  conflict. 
It  dates  from  1844  and  has  as  its  starting-point  the  famous  work  published 
at  that  time  by  Ferdinand  Christian  Baur.3  The  first  phase  had  lasted 
twenty  and  odd  years,  from  Evanson  to  Bretschneider  (1792-1820) ;  the 
second,  also  twenty  and  odd  years,  from  Bretschneider  to  Baur ;  the  third 
has  now  continued  more  than  thirty  years.  It  is  that  of  mortal  combat. 
The  dissertation  which  was  the  signal  of  it  is  certainly  one  of  the  most 
ingenious  and  brilliant  compositions  which  theological  science  has  ever 
produced.  The  purely  negative  results  of  Strauss'  criticism  demanded  as 
a  complement  a  positive  construction ;  on  the  other  hand,  the  arbitrary 
and  subjective  character  of  that  of  Bruno  Bauer  did  not  answer  the  wants 
of  an  era  eager  for  positive  facts.  The  discussion  was,  therefore,  as  it 
were,  involved  in  inextricable  difficulties. 

Baur  understood  that  his  task  was  to  withdraw  it  from  that  position, 
and  that  the  only-  efficacious  means  was  to  discover  in  the  progress  of  the 
Church  of  the  second  century  a  distinctly  marked  historical  situation, 
which  might  be,  as  it  were,  the  ground  whereon  was  raised  the  imposing 
edifice  of  the  fourth  Gospel.  He  believed  that  he  had  discovered  the 
situation  which  he  sought  in  the  last  third  of  the  second  century.  Then, 
indeed,  Gnosis  was  flourishing,  the  borders  of  which  the  narrative  of  our 
Gospel  touches  throughout  all  its  contents.  At  that  time  thinkers  were 
pre-occupied  with  the  idea  of  the  Logos,  which  is  precisely  the  theme  of 
our  work.  The  need  was  felt  more  and  more  of  uniting  in  one  great  and 
single  Catholic  Church  the  two  rival  parties  which,  until  then,  had  divided 
the  Church,  and  which  a  series  of  compromises  had  already  gradually 
brought  near  together ;  the  fourth  Gospel  was  adapted  to  serve  them  as 
a  treaty  of  peace.  An  energetic  spiritual  reaction  against  the  episcopate 
was  rising :  Montanism ;  our  Gospel  furnished  strength  to  this  tendency, 

1  Die  Kirchliehe  Tradition  fiber  den  Apostel  3,  4 ;  reproduced  and  completed  in  the  later 

Johannes  und  seine  Schriften  in  ihrer  Grund-  writings  of  the  same  author :  Kritische  Unter- 

losigkeit  nachgewicsen,  1840.  suehungen  fiber  die  canonischen  Evangelien,  1847; 

»  Tiibinger  Zeitschrift  fur  Theol.  II.  1840.  and  Das  Christenthumunddie  christliche  Kircke 

8  In  Zeller's  Theologische  Jahrbiicher  Hefte  1,  der  drei  ersten  Jahrhunderte,  1853. 


THE   DISCUSSION — THE   ADVERSARIES.  13 

by  borrowing  from  Montanism  the  truth  which  it  contained.  Then, 
finally,  the  famous  dispute  between  the  churches  of  Asia  Minor  and  those 
of  the  West  on  the  subject  of  the  Paschal  rite  burst  forth.  Now,  our  Gos- 
pel modified  the  chronology  of  the  Passion  in  just  such  a  way  as  to  decide 
the  minds  of  men  in  favor  of  the  occidental  rite.  Here,  then,  was  the 
situation  fully  discovered  for  the  composition  of  our  Gospel.  At  the  same 
time,  Baur,  following  the  footsteps  of  Bruno  Bauer,  shows  with  a  marvel- 
ous skill  the  well-considered  and  systematic  unity  of  this  work ;  he  explains 
its  logical  progress  and  practical  applications,  and  thus  overthrows  at  one 
blow  the  hypothesis  of  unreflective  myths,  on  which  the  work  of  Strauss 
rested,  and  every  attempt  at  selection  in  our  Gospel  between  certain 
authentic  parts  and  other  unauthentic  ones.  In  accordance  with  all  this, 
Baur  fixes,  as  the  epoch  of  the  composition,  about  the  year  170 — at  the 
earliest,  160 ;  for  then  it  was  that  all  the  circumstances  indicated  meet 
together.  Only  he  has  not  attempted  to  designate  the  "  great  unknown  " 
to  whose  pen  was  due  this  master-piece  of  high  mystical  philosophy  and 
skillful  ecclesiastical  policy,  which  has  exercised  such  a  decisive  influence 
on  the  destinies  of  Christianity. 

All  the  forces  of  the  school  co-operated  in  supporting  the  work  of  the 
master  in  its  various  parts.  From  1841,  Sclnvegler  had  prepared  the  way 
for  it  by  his  treatise  on  Montanism.1  In  his  work  on  the  period  which  fol- 
lowed that  of  the  apostles,  the  same  author  assigned  to  each  one  of  the 
writings  of  the  New  Testament  its  place  in  the  development  of  the  con- 
flict between  the  apostolic  Judaeo-Christianity  and  Paulinism,  and  set 
forth  the  fourth  Gospel  as  the  crowning  point  of  this  long  elaboration.2 
Zeller  completed  the  work  of  his  master  by  the  study  of  the  ecclesiastical 
testimonies, — a  study  whose  aim  was  to  sweep  away  from  history  every 
trace  of  the  existence  of  the  fourth  Gospel  before  the  period  indicated  by 
Baur.3  Koestlin,  in  a  celebrated  work  on  j)seudonymous  literature  in  the 
primitive  Church,  endeavored  to  prove  that  the  pseudepigraphical  pro- 
cedure to  which  Baur  ascribed  the  composition  of  four-fifths  of  the  New 
Testament  was  in  conformity  with  literary  precedents  and  the  ideas  of  the 
epoch.*  Volkmar  labored  to  ward  off  the  blows  by  which  the  system  of 
his  master  was  unceasingly  threatened  by  reason  of  the  less  and  less  con- 
trovertible citations  of  the  fourth  Gospel  in  the  writings  of  the  second 


1  Der  Montanismus  und  die  christliche  Kirche  den  Ursprung  des  vierten  Evangel 'turns,  in  the 

des  JIten  Jahrhunderts.  Theologische  Jahrbilcher,  1845  and  1847. 

*  Das  nachapostolische  Zeitalter,  1846.  *  Ueber  die  pseudonymische  Litteratur  in  der 

*DU  aiisseren  Zeugnisse  ixber  das  Dasein  und  altesten  Kirche,  in  the  Theol.  Jahrbiicher,  1851. 


14  PRELIMINARIES. 

century — in  those  of  Mareion  and  Justin,  for  example,  and  in  the  Clemen- 
tin'  Homilies.1  Finally,  Hilgenfeld  treated,  in  a  more  profound  way  than 
Baur  had  done,  the  dispute  concerning  the  Passover  and  its  relation  to 
the  authenticity  of  our  Gospel.2 

Thus  learnedly  supported  by  this  Pleiad  of  distinguished  critics,  devoted 
to  the  common  work,  although  not  without  marked  shades  of  difference, 
BauYs  opinion  might  seem,  for  a  moment,  to  have  obtained  a  complete 
and  decisive  triumph. 

Nevertheless,  in  the  midst  of  the  school  itself  a  divergence  became 
manifest  which,  in  many  respects,  was  detrimental  to  the  hypothesis  so 
skillfully  contrived  by  the  master.  Hilgenfeld  abandoned  the  date  fixed 
by  Baur,  and  consequently  a  part  of  the  advantages  of  the  situation  chosen 
by  him.  He  carried  back  the  composition  of  the  Johannean  Gospel 
thirty  or  forty  years.  According  to  him,  this  work  was  connected  espe- 
cially with  the  appearance  of  the  Valentinian  heresy,  about  140.  The 
author  of  the  Gospel  proposed  to  himself  to  introduce  this  Gnostic  teach- 
ing into  the  Church  in  a  mitigated  form.  And  as  already  about  150  "  the 
existence  of  our  Gospel  could  scarcely  be  any  longer  questioned,"  he  put 
back  its  date  even  to  the  period  from  130  to  140.3 

In  I860,  J.  R.  Tobler,  discovering,  side  by  side  with  the  ideal  character 
of  the  narrative,  a  mass  of  geographical  notices  or  of  narratives  truly  his- 
torical, conceived -the  idea  of  ascribing  our  Gospel  to  Apollos  (according 
to  him,  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews)  who  compiled  it  about 
the  end  of  the  first  century  from  information  obtained  from  John.4 

Michel  Nicolas  advanced,  in  1862,  the  following  hypothesis  :  A  Christian 
of  Ephesus  related  in  our  Gospel  the  ministry  of  Jesus  according  to  the 
accounts  of  the  Apostle  John;  and  this  personage  is  the  one  who,  in  the 
two  small  Epistles,  designates  himself  as  the  Elder  (the  presbyter),  and  the 
one  whom  history  makes  known  to  us  under  the  name  of  John  the  Presby- 
ter.5— D'Eichthal  accepted  Hilgenfeld's  idea  of  a  relationship  between  our 
Gospel  and  Gnosis.6  The  work  which  Stap  published  in  the  same  year,  in 
his  collection  of  Critical  Studies,  is  only  a  reproduction,  without  originality, 
of  all  the  ideas  of  the  Tubingen  school.7 

'Comp.,   in   particular,    Ursprung    unserer       the  Zeitsehrift  far  wissensch.  Theol. ,  18G0. 
Boangelim,  1806.  6  Etudes  critiques  sur  la  Bible:  Nouvcau  Tes- 

*  Der  Pastahstreit  der  alten  Kirche,  1860.  lament. 

»Das  Euangelium  und  die  Brief e  Johannis  » Les  Evangiles,  1863 ;  1. 1.,  pp.  25  ff.,  and  else- 

naeh  ihrem  Lehrbegrijfe  dargcstellt,  1849;   die  where. 

Evangelien,  Wr>i ;  das  Urchristenthum,  1855.  i  Etudes  historiques  et  critiques  sur  les  ori- 

*  Ueber  den  Ursprung  des  vierten  Evang.,  in  gines  du  christianisme,  1863. 


THE   DISCUSSION — THE   ADVERSARIES.  15 

In  1864  two  important  books  appeared.  Wcizs'dcker,  in  his  work  on  the 
Gospels,1  sought  to  bring  out  from  our  Gospel  itself  the  proof  of  the 
distinction  between  the  editor  of  this  writing  and  the  Apostle  John,  who 
served  as  a  voucher  for  him.  The  former  wished  only  to  reproduce  in  a 
free  way  the  impressions  which  he  had  experienced  when  hearing  the 
apostolic  witness  describe  the  life  of  the  Lord. 

The  second  book  takes  a  more  decided  position  :  it  is  that  of  Scholten.2 
The  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  is  a  Christian  of  Gentile  origin,  initiated 
in  Gnosticism  and  desirous  of  rendering  that  tendency  profitable  to  the 
Church.  He  seeks,  also,  to  restrain  within  just  limits  the  Marcionite 
antinomianism  and  the  Montanist  exaltation.  As  to  the  Paschal  dispute, 
the  evangelist  does  not  decide  in  favor  of  the  Western  rite,  as  Baur 
thinks ;  he  seeks  rather  to  secure  the  triumph  of  Pauline  spiritualism, 
which  abolishes  feast  days  in  the  Church  altogether.  According  to 
these  indications,  the  author  wrote  about  150.  He  succeeded  in  pre- 
senting to  the  world,  under  the  figure  of  the  mysterious  personage 
designated  as  "the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved,"  the  ideal  believer — the 
truly  spiritual  Christianity  which  was  capable  of  becoming  the  universal 
religion. — Reville  has  set  forth  and  developed  Scholten's  point  of  view  in 
the  Revue  des  Deux-Mondes? 

Let  us  also  remind  the  reader  here  of  the  work  of  Volkmar  *  (page  19), 
directed  against  Teschendorf  personally,  as  much  as  against  his  book, 
When  were  our  Gospels  written  f  However  deplorable  is  its  tone,  this  work 
exhibits  with  learning  and  precision  the  point  of  view  of  Baur's  school. 
The  author  fixes  the  date  of  our  Gospel  between  150  and  160. 

In  1867,  appeared  the  History  of  Jesus,  by  Keim*  This  scholar  ener- 
getically opposes,  in  the  Introduction,  the  authenticity  of  our  Gospel. 
He  lays  especial  stress  upon  the  philosophical  character  of  this  writing; 
then  upon  the  inconsistencies  of  the  narrative  with  the  nature  of  things, 
with  the  data  furnished  by  the  writings  of  St.  Paul,  and  with  the 
Synoptic  narratives.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  he  proves  the  traces  of  its 
existence  as  far  back  as  the  earliest  times  of  the  second  century.  "  The 
testimonies,"  he  says,  "  go  back  as  far  as  to  the  year  120,  so  that  the  com- 
position dates  from  the  beginning  of  the  second  century,  in  the  reign  of 
Trajan,  between  100  and  117." 6    The  author  was  a  Christian  of  Jewish 

1  Untersuchungen  uber  die  evangelische  Oes-  3  La  question  des  tvangiles,  May,  1866. 

ehichte.  *  Der  Ursprung  unsercr  Evangelien,  1866. 

»  Das  Evangelium  nach  Johannes  (18G4),  trans-  B  Oeschichte  Jesu  von  Nazara. 

lated  into  German,  by  H.  Lang,  1807.  *  Vol.  I.,  p.  140. 


16  PRELIMINARIES. 

origin,  belonging  to  the  Diaspora  of  Asia  Minor,  in  full  sympathy  with 
the  Gentiles  and  thoroughly   acquainted   with    everything  relating  to 
Palestine.      In   a  more  recent  writing,  a  popular  reproduction  of  his 
great  work,  Keim  has  withdrawn  from  this  early  date,  stating  as  the 
ground  of  this  change  reasons  which,  we  may  say,  have  no   serious 
importance.     He  now,  with  Hilgenfeld,  fixes  the  composition  about  the 
year  130.1    Of  what  consequence  here  is  a  period  of  ten  years  ?    It  would 
follow  from  the  one  of  these  last  mentioned  dates  as  well  as  from  the 
other,  that,  twenty  or  thirty  years  after  the  death  of  John  at  Ephesus,  the 
fourth  Gospel  was  ascribed  to  this  apostle  by  the  very  presbyters  of  the 
country  where  he  had  spent  the  closing  portion  of  his  life  and  where  he 
had  died.     How  can  we  explain  the  success  of  a  forgery  under  such 
circumstances  ?    Keim  felt  this  difficulty  and  made  an  effort  to  remove 
it.    To  this  end  he  found  no  other  means  except  to  attach  himself  to  the 
idea  put  forth  by  Reuterdahl  and  Lutzelberger,  and  to  rate  the  sojourn  of 
John  in  Asia  Minor  as  a  pure  fiction.    By  this  course,  he  goes  beyond 
even  the  Tubingen  school.     For  Baur  and  Hilgenfeld  did  not  call  in 
question  the  truth  of  that  tradition.    Their  criticism  even  rests  essentially 
on  the  reality  of  John's  sojourn  in  Asia,  first,  because  the  Apocalypse, 
the  Johannean  composition  of  which  serves  them  as  the  point  of  support 
for  their  onset  upon  that  of  the  Gospel,  implies  this  sojourn,  and,  then, 
because  the  argument  which  they  both  draw  from  the  Paschal  contro- 
versy falls  to  the  ground  as  soon  as  the  sojourn  of  the  Apostle  John  in 
that  country  is  no  longer  admitted.    Now,  on  the  contrary,  when  the 
criticism  hostile  to  our  Gospel  feels  itself  embarrassed  by  this  sojourn,  it 
rejects  it  unceremoniously.    According  to  Keim,  that  tradition  is  only 
the  result  of  a  half-voluntary  misunderstanding  of  Irenreus,  who  applied 
to  John  the  apostle  what  Poly  carp  had  related  in  his  presence  of  another 
personage  of  the  same  name.     SchoUen   reaches  the  same  result   by 
different  means.2    This  error  in  the  tradition  is  explained,  according  to 
him,  by  the  confounding  of  the  author  of  the  Apocalypse,  who  was  not 
the  apostle,  but  who  had  taken  advantage  of  his  name,  with  the  apostle 
himself;  in  this  way  the  sojourn  of  John  in  Asia,  where  the  Apocalypse 
appears  to  have  been  composed,  was  imagined.     However  this  may  be,  and 
whatever  may  be  the  explanation  of  the  traditional  misunderstanding,  the 
discovery  of  this  error  "removes,"  says  Keim,  "the  last  point  of  support 
for  the  idea  of  the  composition  of  the  Gospel  by  the  son  of  Zebedee." 3 

1  Oeschichtc  Jesu,  naeh  den  Ergcbnissen  heuti-  *  Der  Apostel  Johannes  in  Kleln-Asien,  trans- 

fer Wmenschaft,  fur  weitere  Kreise,  3d  ed.,       lated  into  German  by  Spiegel,  1872. 
1873.  8p  167< 


THE   DISCUSSION — THE  ADVERSARIES.  17 

We  see  that  two  of  the  foundations  of  Baur's  criticism,  the  authenticity 
of  the  Apocalypse  and  John's  sojourn  in  Asia,  are  undermined  at  this 
hour  by  the  men  who  have  continued  his  work — this  denial  appearing  to 
them  the  only  means  of  making  an  end  of  the  authenticity  of  our 
Gospel. 

In  1868,  the  English  writer,  Davidson,  took  his  position  among  the  oppo- 
nents of  the  authenticity.1  Holtzmann,  like  Keim,  sees  in  our  Gospel  an 
ideal  composition,  but  one  which  is  not  entirely  fictitious.  This  book 
dates  from  the  same  epoch  as  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas  (the  first  third  of 
the  second  century) ;  it  can  be  proved  that  the  Church  has  given  it  a 
favorable  reception  since  the  year  150.2  Krenkel,  in  1871,  defended  the 
sojourn  of  John  in  Asia ;  he  ascribes  to  this  apostle  the  composition  of 
the  Apocalypse,  but  not  that  of  the  Gospel.3 

The  anonymous  English  work,  Supernatural  Religion,  which  has  in  a  few 
years  reached  a  very  large  number  of  editions,  contends  against  the 
authenticity  with  the  ordinary  arguments.4 

The  year  1875  witnessed  the  appearance  of  two  works  of  considerable 
importance.  These  are  two  Introductions  to  the  New  Testament — that 
of  Hilgenfeld*  and  the  third  edition  of  Bleek's  work,  published  with 
original  notes  by  Mangold.6  Hilgenfeld  gives  a  summary,  in  his  book,  of 
the  whole  critical  work  of  past  times  and  of  the  present  epoch.  With 
regard  to  John,  he  continues  in  certain  respects  to  defend  the  cause  to 
which  he  had  consecrated  the  first  fruits  of  his  pen  : — the  non-authenticity 
of  the  fourth  Gospel,  which  was  composed,  according  to  him  under  the 
influence  of  the  Valentinian  Gnosticism.  Mangold  accompanies  the  para- 
graphs in  which  Bleek  defends  the  apostolic  origin  of  our  Gospel  with  very 
instructive  critical  notes,  in  which  in  most  cases  he  seeks  to  refute  that 
scholar.  The  external  proofs  would  seem  to  him  sufficient  to  confirm  the 
authenticity.  But  it  has  not  been  possible,  in  his  opinion,  at  least  up  to 
the  present  time,  to  surmount  the  internal  difficulties. 

In  1876,  a  jurist,  d'Uechtritz,  published  a  book7  in  which  he  ascribes  our 
Gospel  to  a  Jerusalemite  disciple  of  Jesus — probably  John  the  Presbyter 
— who  assumed  the  mask  of  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved  and  composed 
this  work  under  his  name.     This  critic  does  not  find  the  opinion  justified, 

1  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  N.  T.  Vol.  6  Historisch-Kritisrhc  Einleitung  in  dax  N.  T. 

II.  o  Einleittmg  in  das  N.  T.,  von  Fr.  Bleek,  3 

*  Schenkel's  Bibellexicon ;  Vol.   II.,  art.  Ev.        Aufl.,  von  W.  MangoM. 

naeh  Joh.,  1809.  7  Studicn  eincs  Laien  iiber  dc.n  Umpnmg,  di* 

*  Dcr  Apostel  Johannes,  1871.  Bcsehaffcnheit  und  die  Bedentung  des   Evang, 

*  Supernatural  Religion,  1874.  naeh  Johannes. 


18  PRELIMINARIES. 

■which  is  so  widely  spread,  that  the  representation  of  Jesus  traced  in  the 
Synoptics  is  less  exalted  than  the  idea  which  is  given  us  of  Him  in  St. 
John. 

Four  writers  remain  to  be  mentioned  here — three  French  and  one  Ger- 
man, who,  in  our  preceding  edition,  figured  in  the  list  of  the  defenders  of 
the  absolute  or  partial  authenticity,  and  who  have  passed  over  into  the 
opposite  camp,  Renan,  Reuss,  Sabatier  and  Hase. 

The  first  from  the  outset  manifested  a  marked  antipathy  to  the  dis- 
courses ascribed  to  Jesus  by  the  fourth  Gospel.  Nevertheless,  he  always 
set  forth  prominently  the  remarkable  signs  of  authenticity  connected  with 
the  narrative  parts  of  this  same  writing.  He  showed  himself  disposed, 
accordingly,  in  the  first  editions  of  his  Life  of  Jesus,  to  recognize  as  the 
foundation  of  the  historical  parts  not  only  traditions  proceeding  from  the 
Apostle  John,  but  even  "  precise  notes  drawn  up  by  him."  In  the  truly 
admirable  dissertation  which  closes  the  thirteenth  edition,  and  in  which  he 
thoroughly  discusses  the  question,  analyzing  the  Gospel — one  narrative 
after  another — from  this  point  of  view,  he  shows  that  the  contradictory 
appearances  almost  exactly  balance  each  other,  and  ends  by  positively 
affirming  nothing  but  this  alternative  :  either  the  author  is  John  or  he  has 
desired  to  pass  himself  off  as  John.  Finally,  in  his  last  book,  entitled 
VEglise  chretienne*  he  arrives  at  the  result  which  might  have  been  fore- 
seen. The  author  was  perhaps  a  Christian  depositary  of  the  traditions  of 
the  apostle,  or,  at  least,  of  those  of  two  other  disciples  of  Jesus,  John  the 
Presbyter  and  Aristion,  who  lived  at  Ephesus  about  the  end  of  the  first 
century.  We  might  even  go  so  far,  according  to  Renan,  as  to  suppose  that 
this  writer  is  no  other  than  Cerinthus,  the  adversary  of  John  at  Ephesus, 
at  the  same  period. 

Reuss  and  Sabatier  have  likewise  just  finished  their  evolution  in  the 
same  direction.  In  all  his  previous  works,2  Reuss  had  maintained  two 
scarcely  reconcilable  theses  :  the. almost  completely  artificial  and  fictitious 
character  of  the  discourses  of  Jesus  in  our  Gospel  and  the  apostolic  origin 
of  the  work.  It  was  not  difficult  to  foresee  two  things :  1.  That  one  of 
these  theses  would  end  in  excluding  the  other ;  2.  That  it  would  be  the 
first  which  would  prevail  over  the  second.  This  is  what  has  just  hap- 
pened.    In  his  ThcologieJohannique,3  Reuss  declares  his  final  judgment  on 

1 1879.  toire  de  la  theologie  chretienne  au  siecle  apostol- 

*  ldcenzur  Einleitung  in  das  Ev.  Joh.  (Denk-  ique,  1852. 

»chr.  der  theol.  Gesellach.  7,11  Strask),  1840;  a  La  Bible:  Nouveau  Testament,  VI«  partie, 

Gcschichte  der  N.  Tchen  Schriftcn,  1842:  His-  1879. 


THE   DISCUSSION — THE   ADVERSARIES.  19 

this  subject :  The  fourth  Gospel  is  not  by  the  Apostle  John.  Nevertheless, 
Reuss  is  reluctant  to  allow  that  this  work  is  by  a  forger.  And  it  is  not 
necessary  to  admit  this,  since  the  author  expressly  distinguishes  himself 
from  the  Apostle  John  in  more  than  one  passage,  and  limits  himself  to 
tracing  back  to  him  the  origin  of  the  narratives  contained  in  his  book. 
We  thus  find  again,  point  for  point,  the  opinion  of  Weizsiicker  mentioned 
above. 

Sabatier,  in  his  excellent  little  work  on  the  sources  of  the  life  of  Jesus,1 
had  also  maintained  the  authenticity  of  our  Gospel.  But,  having  once 
entered  into  the  views  of  Reuss,  with  respect  to  the  estimation  of  the  dis- 
courses of  Jesus,  he  was  by  a  fatality  obliged  to  follow  him  even  to  the 
end.  He  has  just  distinctly  declared  himself  against  the  authenticity,  in 
his  article  on  the  Apostle  John,  in  the  Eacyclopcdie  des  sciences  religieuses  :* 
An  author  whose  constant  inclination  is  to  exalt  the  Apostle  John  cannot 
be  John  himself.  It  is  one  of  his  disciples  who,  believing  that  he  was  able 
to  identify  himself  with  him,  has  drawn  up  the  Gospel  history  in  the 
form  which  it  had  assumed  in  Asia  Minor ;  he  thus  gives  to  the  Church 
the  apocalypse  of  tlie  Spirit,  a  counterpart  of  the  Apocalypse,  properly 
so  called,  written  by  the  apostle. 

Since  1829,  in  the  different,  editions  of  his  Manual  on  the  Life  of  Jesus,5 
Hase  had  supported  the  Johannean  origin  of  the  fourth  Gospel.  In 
1866,  he  published  a  discourse  in  which  he  represented  this  work  as  the 
last  product  of  the  apostle's  mind  when  it  had  reached  its  full  maturity.* 
But  this  scholar  has  yielded  to  the  same  fatal  law  as  the  three  preceding 
writers.  In  his  History  of  Jesus,5  published  in  1876,  he  gives  up  the 
authenticity,  though  not  without  painful  hesitation.  "Let  us  cast  a 
glance,"  he  says  in  closing  the  discussion,  "at  the  eight  reasons  alleged 
against  the  Johannean  origin:  they  have  not  proved  to  be  decisive;6 
nevertheless,  it  has  not  been  possible  to  refute  them  all  completely.  .  .  . 
I  thus  see  science  driven  to  a  conception  fitted  to  reconcile  the  opposite 
reasons.  A  tradition  different  from  that  of  the  other  Gospels,  and  already 
containing  the  notion  of  the  Logos,  had  taken  form  in  Asia  Minor  under 
the  influence  of  the  accounts  given  by  John.  It  had  remained  in  the 
purely  oral  state,  so  long  as  John  lived."  After  his  death  (ten  years  after- 
wards, or  perhaps  more),  this  tradition  was  recorded  by  a  highly  gifted 

»  Essai  sur  les   sources  de  la  vie  de  Jesus,  *Das  Evangelium  des  Johannes.    Eine  Rede 

186G.  an  die  Gemcinde. 

*  Vol.  vii.,  1870,  pp.  181-193.  6  Geschichte  Jesu. 

*  Das  Leben  Jem.    Ein  Lehrbuch  fur  Acade-  «"Sie  haben  sich  nicht  als  entseheidend 
mische  Vorlesungen ;  5th  ed.,  18G5.  erwiesen." 


20  PRELIMINARIES. 

disciple  of  the  apostle.  He  wrote  as  if  the  latter  himself  were  writing. 
In  this  way  it  is,  that  the  evangelist  is  able  to  appeal  at  once  to  the  testi- 
mony of  his  own  eyes  (i.  14)  and  to  that  of  another,  different  from  himself. 
'•  Who  was  the  writer?  The  Presbyter  John  ?  This  is  possible.  But  it 
may  be  also  an  unknown  person.  The  first  Epistle  may  have  proceeded 
from  the  same  author,  writing  under  the  mask  of  John  ;  but  it  may  also 
have  been  from  John  himself  and  have  served  as  a  model  for  the  style  of 
the  Gospel."  This  hypothesis  is,  according  to  this  author,  a  compromise 
between  the  facts  which  are  contradictory  to  each  other.  "  I  have  not 
without  a  heavy  heart/'  he  adds,  "  broken  away  from  the  belief  in  the 
entire  authenticity  of  the  Johannean  writing."  Finally,  a  little  further 
on,  he  also  says  :  "  The  time  is  come  in  German  theology  when  he  who 
even  ventures  to  recognize  in  the  fourth  Gospel  a  source  possessing  an 
historical  value  compromises  his  scientific  honor.1  It  has  not  always 
been  thus,  even  among  those  who  are  lacking  neither  in  vigor  nor  in 
freedom  of  mind.  But  it  may  also  change  again : 2  the  spirit  of  the 
times  exercises  a  power  even  in  science."  What  reflections  do  not  these 
Bad  avowals  of  the  veteran  of  Jena  suggest ! 

II. 

This  persevering  contest  against  the  authenticity  of  the  Johannean 
Gospel  resembles  the  siege  of  a  fortress,  and  things  have  reached  the 
point  where  already  many  think  they  see  the  standard  of  the  besieger 
floating  victoriously  over  the  ramparts  of  the  place.  Nevertheless,  the 
defenders  have  not  remained  inactive,  and  the  incessant  transformations 
which  the  onsets  have  undergone,  as  the  preceding  exposition  proves, 
leave  no  room  for  questioning  the  relative  success  of  their  efforts.  Let 
us  rapidly  enumerate  the  works  devoted  to  the  defence  of  the  authen- 
ticity. 

The  oldest  attack,  that  of  the  sectaries  of  the  second  century,  called 
Alogi,  did  not  remain  unanswered;  for  it  seems  certain  that  the  writing 
of  Hippolytus  (at  the  beginning  of  the  third  century),  whose  title  appeals 
in  the  catalogue  of  his  works  3  as  'Yirsp  rov  Kara  'Iwdvvov  evayyeXlov  xai  ano- 
Kalvxpeuc,  "Li  behalf  of  the  Gospel  of  John  and  the  Apocalypse"  was  directed 
against  them. 

The  attacks  of  the  English  deists  were  repulsed  in  Germany  and  Hol- 

1  The  author  here  quotes  an  expression  of       men.  ..."  (p.  52). 
Keim.  a  Catalogue  engraved  on  the  pedestal  of  hi* 

*"Es    kann    aber    auch     anders     kom-       statue,  discovered  at  Rome  in  1561. 


THE  DISCUSSION — THE  DEFENDERS.  21 

land  by  Le  Clerc  1  and  Lampe ;  by  the  latter,  in  his  celebrated  Commen- 
tary on  the  Gospel  of  John.2 

Two  Englishmen,  Priestley s  and  Simpson*  immediately  answered  Evan- 
son.  Storr  and  Siiskind  resolved  the  objections  raised  soon  afterwards  in 
Germany,5  and  this  with  such  success  that  Eckermann  and  Schmidt  de- 
clared that  they  retracted  their  doubts. 

Following  upon  this  first  phase  of  the  struggle,  Eichhorn  (1810),  Hug 
(1808),  and  Bertholdt  (1813),  in  their  well-known  Introductions  to  the  New 
Testament,  Wegscheider  in  a  special  work,6  and  others  also,  unanimously 
declared  themselves  on  the  side  of  the  authenticity ;  so  that  at  the  begin- 
ning of  this  century  the  storm  seemed  to  be  calmed  and  the  question 
settled  in  favor  of  the  traditional  opinion.  The  historian  Gieseler,  in  his 
admirable  little  work  on  the  origin  of  the  gospels  (1818),  pronounced  his 
decision  in  the  same  way,  and  expressed  the  idea  that  John  had  composed 
his  book  for  the  instruction  of  Gentiles  who  had  already  made  progress 
in  the  Christian  religion.7 

The  work  of  Bretschneider,  which  all  at  once  broke  this  apparent  calm, 
called  forth  a  multitude  of  replies,  among  which  we  shall  cite  only  those 
of  Olshausen,"  Crome,9  and  Hauff.10  The  first  editions  of  the  Commentaries 
of  Lucke  (1820)  and  Tholuck  (1827)  appeared  also  at  this  same  period. 

In  consequence  of  the  first  of  these  publications,  Bretschneider,  as  we 
have  already  said,  declared  his  objections  solved ;  so  that  once  more  the 
calm  appeared  to  be  restored,  and  Schleiermacher,  with  all  his  school,  could' 
yield  himself,  without  encountering  any  opposition  worthy  of  notice,  to 
the  predilection  which  he  felt  for  our  Gospel.  From  the  beginning  of  his 
scientific  career,  Schleiermacher,  in  his  Reden  uber  die  Religion,  proclaimed 
the  Christ  of  John  to  be  the  true  historic  Christ,  and  maintained  that  the 
Synoptic  narrative  must  be  subordinated  to  our  Gospel.  Critics  as  learned 
and  independent  as  Schott  and  Credner  likewise  maintained  at  that  time 
the  cause  of  the  authenticity ll  in  their  Introductions.  De  Wette  alone  at 
that  moment  caused  a  somewhat  discordant  voice  to  be  still  heard. 

1  Annotaliones    ad   Hammond.   Nov.    Test.,  1  Historisch-Krit.  Versueh  Uber  die  Entste- 

1714.  hung  und  die  fruhesten  Schicksalc  der  schrift- 

*  Commentarius  in  Evang.  Johannis,  1727.  lichen  Evangelien. 

*  Letters  to  a  young  man,  1793.  8  Die  Echtheit  der  vier  canonischcn  Evangelien, 

*  An  essay  on  the  authority  of  the  New  Testa-  1823. 

tnent ,  1793.  9  Probabilia  hand  probabilia,  1824. 

6  In  Flatt'3  Magazine,  1798,  No.  4,  and  1800,  i°  Die  Authentic  und  der  hohe  Werth  des  Evang. 

No.  6.  Johannes,  1831. 

*  Versueh  einer  vollstdndigen  Einleit.  in  das  "  That  of  Schott  in  1830 ;  that  of  Credner 
Evang.  des  Johannes,  180C.  in  1806. 


22  PRELIMINARIES. 

The  appearance  of  Strauss'  Life  of  Jesus,  in  1835,  was  thus  like  a  thun- 
derbolt bursting  forth  in  a  serene  sky.  This  work  called  forth  a  whole 
legion  of  apologetic  writings ;  above  all,  that  of  Tholuck  on  the  credibility 
of  the  evangelical  history,1  and  the  Life  of  Jesus  by  Neander.2  The  con- 
cessions made  to  Strauss  by  the  latter  have  been  often  wrongly  interpreted. 
They  had  as  their  aim  only  to  establish  a  minimum  of  incontrovertible 
facts,  while  giving  up  that  which  might  be  assailed.  And  it  was  this  work 
which  is  so  moderate,  so  impartial,  and  in  whose  every  word  we  feel  the 
incorruptible  love  of  truth,  which  seems,  for  the  moment,  to  have  made 
upon  Strauss  the  deepest  impression,  and  to  have  drawn  from  him,  with 
reference  to  the  Gospel  of  John,  the  kind  of  retractation  announced  in 
his  third  edition.3 

Gfroerer*  although  starting  from  quite  another  point  of  view  as  com- 
pared with  the  two  preceding  writers,  defended  the  authenticity  of  our 
Gospel  against  Strauss.  Frommann?  on  his  side,  refuted  the  hypothesis 
of  Weisse.  From  1837  to  1844,  Norton  published  his  great  work  on  the 
evidences  of  the  authenticity  of  the  Gospels,6  and  Guericke,  in  1843,  his 
Introduction  to  the  New  Testament.7 

In  the  following  years  appeared  the  work  of  Ebrard  on  the  evangelical 
history,8  the  truth  of  which  he  valiantly  defended  against  Strauss  and 
Bruno  Bauer,  and  the  third  edition  of  Lucke's  Commentary  (1848).  But 
this  last  author  made  such  concessions  as  to  the  credibility  of  the  dis- 
courses and  of  the  Christological  teaching  of  John,  that  the  adversaries 
did  not  fail  soon  to  turn  his  work  against  the  very  thesis  which  he  had 
desired  to  defend. 

We  reach  the  last  period, — that  of  the  struggle  maintained  against  Baur 
and  his  school.  Ebrard  was  the  first  to  appear  in  the  breach.9  At  his  side 
a  young  scholar  presented  himself,  who,  in  a  work  filled  with  rare  patristic 
erudition  and  knowledge  drawn  from  the  primary  sources,  sought  to  bring 
back  to  the  right  path  historical  criticism,  which,  in  the  hands  of  Baur, 
seemed  to  have  strayed  from  it.  We  mean  Thiersch,  whose  work,  modestly 
entitled  an  Essay,  is  still  at  the  present  day  for  beginners  one  of  the  most 
useful  means  of  orientation  in  the  domain  of  the  history  of  the  first  two 

1  Die  Glaubwurdigkeit  der  evangel.  Geschichte,  6  The  Evidences  of  the  Genuineness  of  the 

1837.  Gospels. 

5  Das  Lcbcn  Jesu  Christi,  1837.  *  Uistorisch-Kritische  Einleitung  in  das  N.  T. 

s  Edition  of  1840.  8  Wisscnschaftliche  Kritik  der  Evangel.  Ge- 

4  Geschichte  des  Urchristcnthums,  1S38.  schichte,  lsted.,1842;  3d  ed.,  1868. 

*  Ueber  die  Echtheitund  Integi-itat  des  Evang.  9  Das  Evang.  Joh.  und  die  neueste  Hypothest 

Joh.,  1840.  iiber  seine  Entstehung,  1845. 


THE  DISCUSSION — THE   DEFENDERS.  23 

centuries.1  Baur  did  not  brook  this  call  to  order  which  was  addressed  to 
him — to  him,  a  veteran  in  science — by  so  young  a  writer.  In  an  excite- 
ment of  irritation,  he  wrote  that  violent  pamphlet  in  which  he  accused 
his  adversary  of  fanaticism,  and  which  had  almost  the  character  of  a  de- 
nunciation.2 The  reply  of  Thiersch  was  as  remarkable  for  its  propriety 
and  dignity  of  tone  as  for  the  excellence  of  the  general  observations  which 
are  presented  in  it  on  the  criticism  of  the  sacred  writings.3  The  justness 
of  some  of  Thiersch's  ideas  may  be  called  in  question,  but  it  cannot  be 
denied  that  his  two  works  abound  in  ingenious  and  original  points  of 
view. 

A  strange  work  appeared  at  this  time.  The  author  is  commonly 
quoted  in  German  criticism  under  the  name  of  the  Anonymous  Saxon  ;  it 
is  now  known  that  he  was  a  Saxon  theologian,  named  Hasert,  who  was, 
at  that  time,  one  of  the  Thurgovian  clergy.  He  defended  the  authenticity 
of  our  Gospels,  but  with  the  intention  of  showing,  by  this  very  authen- 
ticity, how  the  apostles  of  Jesus,  the  authors  of  these  books,  or  rather  of 
these  pamphlets,  had  labored  only  to  decry  and  traduce  one  another.* 

The  most  able  and  most  learned  reply  to  the  works  of  Baur  and  Zeller 
was  that  of  Bleek,  in  1846.5  By  the  side  of  this  work,  the  articles  by 
Hauff  deserve  to  be  specially  mentioned.6 

In  the  following  years,  Weitzel  and  Sleitz,  discussed  with  much  care  and 
erudition  the  argument  drawn  by  Baur  from  the  Paschal  controversy, 
near  the  end  of  the  second  century.7  Following  in  the  footsteps  of 
Bindemann  (1842),  Semisch  demonstrated  the  use  of  our  four  Gospels  by 
Justin  Martyr.8 

The  year  1852,  saw  the  appearance  of  two  very  interesting  works  :  that 
of  the  Dutch  writer,  Niermeyer,  designed  to  prove  by  a  subtle  and 
thorough  study  of  the  writings  ascribed  to  John,  that  the  Apocalypse  and 
the  Gospel  could  and  must  have,  both  of  them,  been  composed  by  him,  and 
that  the  differences  of  contents  and  form,  which  distinguish  them,  are  to 
be  explained  by  the  profound  spiritual  revolution  which  was  wrought  in 

1  Versuch  zur    Herstellung   des   historischen  &  Beitrdge  zur  Evangelienkritik. 

Standpuncts    fur    die    Kritik  '  der    neutest.  *  Einlgc  Bemerkungen  fiber  die  Composition 

Schrtften,  1845.  des  Johann.  Evangehunis,  in  the  Studien  und 

*  Der    Kritikcr   und  der  Fanatlker    in   der  Kritlken,  184G. 

Person  des  Herm  H.  W.  J.  Thiersch,  1846.  »  Weitzel,  Die   christliche    Passahfeier    der 

*Emige  Worte  uber  die  Echtheit  der  neutest.  drei  crsten  Jahrhunderte,  1848;  Steitz  in  the 

Schriften,  zur  Erwiderung,  etc.,  1847.  Studien  und  Kritlken,  185G  and  1857. 

*D\e  Evangehen,  ihr  Gexst,  ihre    Verfasser,  8  Die    apostotischen    Denkwiirdigkeiten    dm 

und  ihr  Verhdltniss   m  etnander,  1845.  Miirtyrcrs  Justin,  1848. 


24  PRELIMINARIES. 

the  apostle  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.1  A  similar  idea  was 
expressed,  at  the  same  time,  by  Hase}  The  second  work  is  the  Commen- 
tary of  Luthardt  on  the  fourth  Gospel,  the  first  part  of  which  contains  a 
series  of  characteristic  portraitures  of  the  principal  actors  in  the  evan- 
gelical drama,  according  to  St.  John,  designed  to  render  palpable  the 
living  reality  of  all  these  personages.  These  portraitures  are  full  of  acute 
and  just  observations. 

Ewald,  like  Hase,  defends  the  authenticity,  but  does  so,  while  according 
scarcely  any  historical  credibility  to  the  discourses  which  the  apostle 
assigns  to  Jesus,  and  even  to  the  miraculous  deeds  which  he  relates.3 
This  is  an  inconsistency  which  Baur  has  severely  criticised  in  his  reply  to 
Hase.  Such  defences  of  a  gospel,  are  almost  equivalent  to  sentences  of 
condemnation  pronounced  against  it,  or  rather  they  destroy  themselves. 
We  can  say  almost  the  same  of  the  opinion  of  Bunsen*  who  regards  the 
Gospel  of  John  as  the  only  monument  of  the  evangelical  history  pro- 
ceeding from  an  eye-witness,  who  declares  even  that  otherwise  "  there  ia 
no  longer  an  historical  Christ,"  and  who  yet  remits  to  the  domain  of 
legend  so  decisive  a  fact  as  that  of  the  resurrection.  Bleek,  in  his  Intro- 
duction to  the  New  Testament,5  and  Meyer,  Hengstenberg,  and  Lange,  in 
their  Commentaries,  have  declared  themselves  in  favor  of  the  authen- 
ticity, as  well  as  Astie  6  (who  adopts  Niermeyer's  point  of  view),  and  the 
author  of  these  lines.7  The  Johannean  question,  in  its  relation  to  that  of 
the  Synoptic  Gospels,  has  been  treated  in  an  instructive  way  by  de 
Pressense? 

The  study  of  the  patristic  testimonies  has  recently  been  made  the 
object  of  two  works,  one  of  a  popular  character,  and  the  other  more 
exclusively  scientific :  the  little  treatise  of  Tischendorf  on  the  time  of  the 
composition  of  our  Gospels,9  and  the  Academic  programme  of  Riggenbach 

1  Over  die echtheid  der  Johanneischen  Sthrij 'ten,  by  Bruston,  under  the  title:    Etude  critique 

etc.,  1852.    See  the  reviews  of  this  work  in  the  sur  V  evangrie  de  Jean,  18G4.    Translation  of 

Revue  de  theologic,  June,  July  and  Sept.,  1856.  Bleek's  Introduction  into  English,  in  Clark's 

See  also  the  articles  Jean  leprophUe  and  Jean  For.  Theol.  Libr.,  18G9. 

V  evangellste,  ou  lacrise  dclafoi  chezunap6tre,  6 Explication deV  evang'ile  selon saint  Jean,  1863. 

by  M.  Reville  (Rev.  de  thiol.,  1854).  »  Commentaire  sur  I'  ivangile  de  St.  Jean,  18G4; 

2 Die  TiXbinger-Schule.  Sendscreiben  an  Baur,  translated  into  German  by  Wunderlich,  18G9 ; 

1855.     Vom  Evangehum  des  Johannes,  1866.  the  conclusion,  since  1SG6,  by  Wirz,  under  the 

3 Jahrbucher der biblischenWtssenschaft,185l,  title:   Prufung  der  Streitfragen  uber  das  ite 

1853,  I860,  18G5.    Die  Johann.  Schriften,  1861.  Evang.— 2d  ed.,  1876. 

*  In  his  lilbelwerk.  8  in  the  first  book  of  his  Vie  de  Jesus. 

*The  chapters  of  Bleek  relating  to  theGos-  *  Wann  wurden  unsere  Evangelien  verfasttl 

pel  of  John  havo  been  translated  into  French  1865 ;  4th  ed.,  1866. 


THE  DISCUSSION — THE  DEFENDERS.  25 

in  1866,  on  the  historical  and  literary  testimonies  in  favor  of  the  Gospel 
of  John.1  The  solidity  and  impartiality  of  this  latter  work  have  been 
recognized  by  the  author's  opponents. 

We  may  add  to  these  two  writings  that  in  which  the  Groningen  pro- 
fessor, Hqfstede  de  Groot,  has  treated  the  question  of  the  date  of  Basilidcs 
and  of  the  Johannean  quotations,  especially  in  the  Gnostic  writers.'2 
The  cause  of  the  authenticity  has  also  been  maintained  by  the  Abbe" 
Deramey  (1868).3 

The  tradition  of  the  sojourn  of  John  in  Asia  Minor  has  been  valiantly 
defended  against  Keim  by  Steitz*  and  Wabmtz.*  Wittichen,  taking  his 
position  at  a  point  of  view  which  is  peculiar  to  himself,  gives  up  the 
sojourn  of  the  Apostle  John  in  Asia,  but  does  this  in  order  so  much  the 
better  to  support  the  authenticity  of  our  Gospel,  while  he  maintains  that 
it  was  composed  by  the  apostle  in  Syria  for  the  purpose  of  combating  the 
Ebionites  who  were  of  Essenic  tendency.  This  work  would  thus  date 
from  the  times  which  immediately  followed  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem. As  for  the  John  of  Asia  Minor,  he  was  the  presbyter,  the 
author  of  the  Apocalypse.6  We  have  here  the  antipode  of  the  Tubingen 
theses. 

In  two  works,  one  by  Zahn,  the  other  by  Riggenbach,  the  question  of  the 
existence  of  John  the  Presbyter,  as  a  distinct  personage  from  the  apostle, 
has  been  treated.  After  a  careful  study  of  the  famous  passage  of  Papias 
relative  to  this  question,  they  come  to  a  negative  conclusion.7  Leimbach' 
likewise,  in  a  special  study,8  does  the  same  thing,  and  Professor  Milligan, 
of  Aberdeen,  also,  in  an  article  in  the  Journal  of  Sacred  Literature,  entitled 
John  the  Presbyter  (Oct.  1867). 

The  historical  credibility  of  the  discourses  of  Jesus  in  the  fourth  Gospel 
has  been  defended  against  modern  objections  by  Gess,  in  the  first  volume 
of  the  second  edition  of  his  work  on  the  Person  of  our  Lord,9  and  more 
especially  by  H.  Meyer  in  a  very  remarkable  licentiate-thesis.10  The  English 


1  Die  Zeugnisse  fur  das  Evang.  Johannis  neu  und  Kritiken,  18GG,  No.  2;  Riggenbach:   Jo- 

untersucht.  hannes  der  Apostel  und  Presbyter,  in  the  Jahr- 

*  Basdides  am  Ausgang  des  apostolischen  Zeit-  biichcr  fur  dcutsche  Theologic,  1SG8. 

alters  ;  German  edition,  1808.  8  Das  Papias-Fragment,  1875  (reply  to  the 

«  Defense  du  quatrieme  evangile.  work  :  Das  Papias- Fragment  des  Euscbius,  by 

*Studien  und  Kritiken,  18(59.  Weiffenbach,  1874.) 

6  In  the  Bulletin  thioloqique,  18G8.  •  Christi    Person   und    Work.     Neue    Bear- 

•  Der   geschichthche    Charakter   des   Evang.  beitung.    Part  I.    Christi  Zeugniss,  etc.,  1870. 
Joh.,  1868.  10  Les  Discours  du  4«  iv.  sont-ils  des  discoura 

1  Zahn :  Papias  von  Eierapolis,  in  the  Studlen  historiques  de  Jisus  t    1872. 


26  PRELIMINARIES. 

work  of  Sanday1  dates  from  the  year  1872,  and  that  of  the  superintendent 
Leuschner2 — a  brave  little  work  which  especially  attacks  Keim  and 
Scholten. 

We  close  this  review  by  mentioning  six  recent  and  remarkable  works, 
all  of  them  devoted  to  the  defense  of  the  authenticity.  Three  are  the 
products  of  German  learning.  The  first  is  the  critical  study  of  Luthardt,3 
forming  in  a  special  volume  the  introduction  to  the  second  edition  of  his 
Commentary  on  the  fourth  Gospel.  The  second  is  the  brilliant  work  of 
Beyschlag  in  the  Studien  und  Kritiken*  which  contains  perhaps  the  most 
able  replies  to  the  modern  objections.  Bernhard  Weiss  (in  the  sixth  edi- 
tion of  Meyer's  Commentary)  has  treated,  in  a  manner  at  once  profound 
and  concise,  the  question  of  the  origin  of  our  Gospel.  He  vigorously 
defends  the  authenticity,  without,  however,  maintaining  strictly  the  his- 
torical character  of  the  discourses.5 

The  French  work  is  that  of  Nyegaard*  It  is  a  thesis  devoted  to  the 
examination  of  the  external  testimonies  relating  to  the  authenticity.  This 
same  subject  is  specially  treated  by  one  of  the  two  English  works,  that  of 
Ezra  Abbott,  professor  in  Harvard  University.7  This  work  seems  to  me  to 
exhaust  the  subject.  A  complete  acquaintance  with  modern  discussions, 
profound  study  of  the  testimonies  of  the  second  century,  moderation  and 
perspicuity  in  judgment — nothing  is  wanting.  The  other  English  work  is 
the  Commentary  of  Westcott,  professor  at  Cambridge.8  In  the  introduc- 
tion all  the  critical  questions  are  handled  with  learning  and  tact. 

III. 

Pressed  by  the  force  of  the  reasons  alleged  for  and  against  the  authen- 
ticity, a  certain  number  of  theologians  have  sought  to  give  satisfaction  to 
both  sides  by  having  recourse  to  a  middle  position. 

Some  have  attempted  to  make  a  selection  between  the  truly  Johannean 
parts  and  those  which  have  been  added  later.  Thus  Weisse,  to  whom  we 
have  been  obliged  to  attribute  an  important  part  in  the  history  of  the 
struggle  against  the  authenticity  (page  19),  would  be  disposed,  neverthe- 

1  The  authorship  and  historical  character  of  des  Johann.,  Gth  ed.,  1880. 

the  fourth  Gospel,  t  Essai  sur  les  critires  externes  de  Vauthen- 

1  Das.  Evang.  Joh.  und  seine  neuesten  Wider-  ticite  du  quatrieme  evanc/Ue,  1876. 

whcr.  7  The  authorship  of  the  fourth  Gospel.— Ex- 

8  Der  Johann.   Ursprung  des  vierten  Evang.,  ternal  evidences,  Boston,  1880. 

1°'*-  8  The  Holy  Bible,  commented  upon  by  a 

1874  und  1875.  company  of  English  bishops  and  clergymen; 

6  Kritisch-exeget.  Sandbuch  uber  das  Evang.  N.  T.,  vol.  II.,  1880. 


THE  DISCUSSION — THE  DEFENDERS. 


27 


less,  to  ascribe  to  John  himself  chap,  i.,  1-5  and  9-14,  certain  passages  in 
chap,  iii.,  and,  finally,  the  discourses  contained  in  chaps,  xiv.-xvii.  (while 
striking  out  the  dialogue  portions  and  narrative  elements). 

Schiveizer  has  proposed  another  mode  of  selection.1  The  narratives 
which  have  Galilee  as  their  theatre  must,  according  to  him,  be  eliminated 
from  the  Johannean  writing ;  they  have  been  added  later  to  facilitate  the 
agreement  between  the  narrative  of  John  and  that  of  the  Synoptics.  Is 
not  chap.  xxi.  for  example,  a  manifest  addition  ?  Schenkel  had  formerly 
proposed  to  regard  the  discourses  as  forming  the  primitive  work,  and  the 
historical  parts  as  added  subsequently.2  But  since  the  unity  of  the  com- 
position of  our  Gospel  has  been  triumphantly  demonstrated,  the  division 
in  such  an  external  way  has  been  given  up.  We  are  not  acquainted  with 
any  more  recent  attempts  of  this  kind. 

This  long  enumeration,  which  contains  only  the  most  noteworthy 
works,  proves  of  itself  the  gravity  of  the  question.3  Let  us  sum  up  the 
preceding  exposition.  We  may  do  this  by  making  the  following  scale, 
which  includes  all  the  points  of  view  which  have  been  mentioned. 

1.  Some  deny  all  participation,  even  moral  and  indirect,  on  the  part  of 
the  Apostle  John  in  the  composition  of  the  work  which  bears  his  name. 


1  Das  Evang.  Joh.  nach  seinem  inneren  Werth 
kritisch  untersurht,  1841.  The  author  has 
since  then  withdrawn  his  hypothesis. 

2  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1840  (review  of  the 
work  of  Weisse).  In  his  later  works  he 
makes  of  the  Gospel  an  ideal  composition, 
dating  from  110  to  120. 

8  Let  us  mention  also  various  Review  arti- 
cles which  are  not  without  importance.  First, 
three  remarkable  articles  of  Weizsacker  in 
the  Jahrb.  fur  deutsche  Theologie :  Das  Selbst- 
teugniss  des  Johann.  Christus  (1857) ;  Bcitrdge 
zur  Charakteristik  des  Joh.  Ev.  (1859) ;  die  Joh. 
LogosUhre  (18G2).  Then,  four  studies  of 
Holtzmann  in  the  Zeitsehrift  fur  wissenseh. 
Theol.:  Barnabas  und  Johannes  1871,  in  which 
the  author  proves  that  the  epistle  of  Barna- 
bas rests  upon  Matthew,  but  not  upon  John  ; 
Eermas  und  Johannes  (1875),  in  which  he 
seeks  to  prove,  in  opposition  to  Zahn,  that 
Hermas  does  not  depend  on  John,  but  John 
is  posterior  to  Hermas;  the  Shepherd  is  an 
essay  of  a  novice  which  the  fourth  Gospel 
has,  at  a  later  time,  perfected  (Harnack,  in 


1876,  refuted  Holtzmann  in  the  same  journal, 
but  without  accepting  Zahn's  thesis);  Johan- 
nes, Ignatius  und  Pohjearp  (1877),  in  which  he 
reduces  to  nothing  the  testimonies  borrowed 
from  the  last  two  in  favor  of  the  Gospel  of 
John;  Papias  und  Johannes  (1880),  in  which 
he  seeks  to  show  that  the  order  of  the  apos- 
tles' names  in  the  famous  list  of  authorities 
in  Papias  does  not  rest,  as  Steitz  has  proved, 
upon  the  Gospel  of  John.  The  two  works  of 
Van  Goens :  L'apdtre  Jean  est-il  Vautcur  du 
IVe  ivangile  f  and  of  Rambert,  in  reply  to  the 
foregoing,  in  the  Revue  de  theologie  et  de 
philosophie,  Lausanne,  187G  and  1877.— The 
study  of  Weiffcnbach  on  the  testimony  of 
Papias  (p.  37)  and  the  reply  of  Ludemann 
("  Zur  Erklarung  des  Papiasfragments  ")  in 
the  Jahrb.  fur  protest.  Theol.,  1870.  This  last 
work  closes  with  a  general  survey  of  the 
whole  Johannean  literature. — Finally,  a  criti- 
cal article  of  Hilgenfeld  on  Luthardt's  Intro- 
duction to'the  fourth  Gospel  and  on  my  own, 
in  the  Jaltrb.  fiir  U>is,sen£ch.  TbcQl.,  J88Q, 


28  PRELIMINARIES. 

With  the  exception  of  certain  elements  borrowed  from  the  Synoptics, 
this  work  contains  only  a  fictitious  history  (Baur,  Keim). 

2.  Others  make  our  Gospel  a  free  redaction  of  the  Johannean  traditions, 
which  continued  in  Asia  Minor  after  the  sojourn  of  the  apostle  at 
Ephesus ;  the  author  thought  that  he  could  innocently  pass  himself  off 
as  the  Apostle  John  himself  (Kenan,  Hase). 

3.  A  third  party  do  not  admit  that  the  author  wished  to  pass  himself 
off  as  John ;  they  think,  on  the  contrary,  that  he  has  expressly  distin- 
guished himself  from  the  apostle,  whose  stories  served  him  as  authorities 
(Weizsacker,  Reuss). 

4.  The  partisans  of  a  middle  course  go  a  little  further.  They  discover 
in  the  Gospel  a  certain  number  of  passages  or  notes  which  are  due  to  the 
pen  of  John  himself  and  which'were  amplified  at  a  later  time  ( Weisse, 
Schweizer). 

5.  Finally,  there  come  the  defenders  of  the  authenticity  properly  so 
called,  who  are  yet  divided  on  one  point ;  some  recognize  in  the  text  as  it 
Exists  more  or  less  considerable  interpolations  (the  incident  of  the  angel 
at  Bethesda,  chap.  v. ;  the  story  of  the  woman  taken  in  adultery,  chap, 
viii.),  and  the  important  addition  of  chap.  xxi. ;  others  adopt  as  authentic 
the  common  text  in  its  entirety. 

On  which  of  the  steps  of  this  scale  must  we  place  ourselves  in  order  to 
be  with  the  truth?  This  is  what  the  scrupulous  examination  of  the  facts 
alone  can  teach  us. 


BOOK  FIRST. 
THE  APOSTLE  ST.  JOHN. 


i. 

JOHN  IN  HIS  FATHER'S  HOUSE. 

It  appears  from  all  the  documents  that  John  was  a  native  of  Galilee. 
He  belonged  to  that  northern  population,  with  whose  lively,  laborious, 
independent,  warlike  character  Josephus  has  made  us  acquainted.  The 
pressure  exerted  on  the  nation  by  the  religious  authorities  having  their 
seat  at  Jerusalem  did  not  bear  with  equal  weight  upon  that  remote 
country.  More  free  from  prejudice,  more  open  to  the  immediate  impres- 
sion of  the  truth,  Galilean  hearts  offered  to  Jesus  that  receptive  soil 
which  His  work  demanded.  Thus  all  His  apostles,  with  the  exception 
of  Judas  Iscariot,  seem  to  have  been  of  that  province,  and  it  was  there 
that  He  succeeded  in  laying  the  foundations  of  His  Church. 

John  dwelt  on  those  shores  of  the  lake  of  Gennesaret,  which,  in  our 
day,  present  to  the  eye  only  a  vast  solitude,  but  which  were  then  covered 
with  towns  and  villages  having  in  all,  according  to  Josephus,  many  thou- 
sands of  inhabitants.  Did  John,  as  is  often  said,  have  his  home  at  Beth- 
saida?  This  is  the  conclusion  drawn  from  Luke  v.  10,  where  he  is  desig- 
nated, along  with  his  brother  James,  as  a  partner  of  Simon,  and  from 
John  i.  44,  where  Bethsaida  is  called  the  city  of  Andrew  and  Peter.  But, 
notwithstanding  this,  John  may  have  dwelt  at  Capernaum,  which  could 
not  have  been  far  removed  from  the  hamlet  of  Bethsaida,  since  on  coming 
out  of  the  synagogue  of  that  city  Jesus  enters  immediately  into  Peter's 
house  (Mark  i.  29). 

The  family  of  John  contained  four  persons  who  are  known  to  us :  his 
brother  James,  who  seems  to  have  been  his  elder  brother,  since  he  is 
ordinarily  named  before  him;  their  father  Zebedce,  who  was  a  fisherman 
(Mark  i.  19,  20),  and  their  mother,  who  must  have  borne  the  name  of 
Salome,  for  in  the  two  evidently  parallel  passages,  Matt,  xxvii.  5G,  and 
Mark  xv.  40,  where  the  women  are  mentioned  who  were  present  at  the 
crucifixion  of  Jesus,  the  name  Salome  in  Mark  is  the  equivalent  of  the 
title  :  the  mother  of  the  sons  of  Zebedee  in  Matthew.  Wieseler  has  sought 
to  prove  that  Salome  was  the  sister  of  Mary,  the  mother  of  Jesus ;  from 
which  it  would  follow  that  John  was  the  cousin-german  of  our  Lord.1 
We  cannot  regard  this  hypothesis  as  having  sufficient  foundation,  either 

1  Studicn  und  Kritiken,  1840. 

29 


r4l^,  ^  -$Q"<x^"tkb,  *«■    BOOK   I.      THE  APOSTLE  JOHN. 

exegetically  or  historically.  The  enumeration  in  John  xix.  25,  in  which 
Wieseler  finds  four  persons:  1.  The  mother  of  Jesus;  2.  The  sister  of  Hia 
mother;  3.  Mary,  the  wife  of  Clopas,  and  4.  Mary  Magdalene,  appears  to 
us  to  include  only  three,  the  words  Mary,  the  wife  of  Clopas  being  quite 
naturally  the  explanatory  apposition  of  the  words,  the  sister  of  His  mother 
(see  the  exegesis).  And  how  is  it  possible  in  that  case  that  our  Gospels 
should  not  present  some  trace  of  so  near  a  relationship  between  Jesus 
and  John  ?  Wieseler  asks,  it  is  true,  how  two  sisters  could,  both  of  them, 
have  borne  the  name  of  Mary.  But  there  is  nothing  to  prevent  the  word 
sister  here  from  being  taken,  as  it  is  so  frequently,  in  the  sense  of  sister-in- 
law.  This  sense  is  the  more  probable,  inasmuch  as,  according  to  a  very 
ancient  tradition  (Hegesippus),  Clopas  was  the  brother  of  Joseph,  and 
consequently  brother-in-law  of  Mary,  the  mother  of  Jesus. 

John's  family  enjoyed  a  certain  competency.  According  to  Mark  i.  20, 
Zebedee  has  day-laborers;  Salome  is  ranked  (Matt,  xxvii.  56),  in  the 
number  of  the  women  who  accompanied  Jesus  as  He  journeyed,  and  who 
(Luke  viii.  3)  ministered  to  Him  and  the  Twelve  of  their  substance.  Accord- 
ing to  our  Gospel  (xix.  27),  John  possessed  a  house  of  his  own,  into  which 
he  received  the  mother  of  our  Lord.  Is  it  necessary  to  reckon,  as  some 
have  done,  among  these  indications  of  competency,  the  relation  of  his 
family  to  the  high-priest,  of  which  mention  is  made  in  xviii.  16  ?  This 
conclusion  has  the  less  foundation  since  it  cannot  be  proved  that  the  other 
disciple  mentioned  in  that  passage  was  one  of  the  sons  of  Zebedee,  either 
John  or  James.  The  prosperous  condition  of  the  family  was  undoubtedly 
due  to  the  then  very  lucrative  business  of  fishing,  and  to  the  considerable 
commerce  which  was  connected  with  it.1 

Two  points  in  the  life  of  Salome  betray  a  lively  religious  sentiment : 
the  eagerness  with  which  she  consecrated  herself,  as  we  have  just  seen, 
to  the  service  of  Jesus,  and  the  request  which  she  had  the  boldness  one 
day  to  present  to  the  Lord  on  behalf  of  her  two  sons  (Matt.  xx.  20).  Such 
a  petition  reveals  an  enthusiastic  heart,  and  a  piety  which  was  ardent,  yet 
imbued  with  the  most  earthly  Messianic  hopes.  She  had  labored,  no 
doubt,  to  exalt  in  the  same  direction  the  religious  patriotism  of  her  sons. 
So,  as  soon  as  the  forerunner  appeared  on  the  scene,  John  hastened  to  his 
baptism.  He  even  attached  himself  to  him  as  his  disciple  (John  i.);  and 
it  was  in  his  presence  that  Jesus  met  him  when  he  returned  from  the 
desert,  whither  he  had  betaken  Himself  after  His  baptism,  with  the  design 
of  beginning  His  work.2 

II. 

JOHN  A  FOLLOWER  OF  JESUS. 

As  John  passed  quietly  from  the  paternal  hearth  to  the  baptism  of  the 
forerunner,  he  seems  also  to  have  passed  without  any  violent  crisis  from 
the  school  of  the  latter  to  that  of  Jesus.    In  this  progressive  development 

1  See  Lucke's  Commentary,  Introduction,  p.  9. 

*  We  refer  lor  the  justification  of  these  data  to  the  exegesis  of  John  !< 


A  FOLLOWER  OF   JESUS.  31 

there  was  no  shock,  and  no  rupture.  He  had  only  to  follow  the  inward 
drawing,  the  Father's  teaching,  according  to  the  profound  expressions 
which  he  himself  employs,  in  order  to  rise  from  step  to  step  even  to  the 
summit  of  truth.  It  was  the  royal  road  described  in  that  utterance  of  the 
Lord  to  Nicodemus  :  "  He  that  doeth  the  truth  cometh  to  the  light,  because 
his  works  are  wrought  in  God  "  (John  iii.  21).  By  this  calm  and  contin- 
uous character  of  his  development,  John  appears  to  be,  in  the  spiritual 
world,  the  antipode  of  Paul. 

The  story  of  his  call  as  a  believer  has  been  preserved  to  us  in  the  first 
chapter  of  our  Gospel ;  for  everything  tends  to  make  us  believe  that  the 
disciple  who  accompanied  Andrew,  at  that  decisive  hour  in  which  the  new 
society  was  founded,  was  no  other  than  John  himself.  From  the  banks  of 
the  Jordan,  Jesus  then  returned,  with  him  and  the  few  young  Galileans  in 
the  company  of  John  the  Baptist,  whom  He  had  attached  to  Himself, 
first  to  Cana  and  then  to  Nazareth,  which  He  left  soon  afterwards  in  com- 
pany with  His  mother  and  His  brethren,  to  establish  Himself  with  them 
at  Capernaum  (John  ii.  12;  comp.  Matt.  iv.  13).  Jesus,  as  Himself  still 
belonging  to  His  family,  had  sent  back  these  young  men  to  the  bosom  of 
their  own.  But  when,  a  few  days  afterwards,  the  moment  arrived  when 
He  must  enter  upon  His  ministry  in  Judea,  in  the  theocratic  capital,  He 
called  them  to  follow  Him  in  a  permanent  way  and  severed  for  them,  as 
for  Himself,  the  ties  of  domestic  life.  This  new  call  took  place  on  the  I 
shores  of  the  lake  of  Gennesaret,  near  Capernaum.  The  account  of  it  is 
given  in  Matt.  iv.  18  and  the  parallel  passages. 

Subsequently,  as  the  company  of  His  disciples  became  more  and  more 
numerous,  He  chose  twelve  from  among  them,  on  whom  He  conferred 
the  special  title  of  apostles  (Luke  vi.  12  ff. ;  Mark  iii.  13  ff.).  In  the  first 
rank  were  the  two  brothers,  John  and  James,  with  their  two  friends  Simon 
and  Andrew,  who  were  also  brothers.  And  soon  among  these  four  the 
two  sons  of  Zebedee  and  Simon  were  honored  by  a  more  especial  intimacy 
with  Jesus.  Thus  we  see  them  alone  admitted  to  the  raising  of  Jairus* 
daughter  and  to  the  two  scenes  of  the  transfiguration  and  Gcthsemane, 
John  was  also,  together  with  Peter,  charged  with  the  secret  mission  of 
preparing  the  Passover  (Luke  xxii.  8).  It  was,  doubtless,  this  sort  of 
preference  of  which  he,  as  well  as  his  brother,  was  the  object,  which 
emboldened  Salome  to  ask  for  them  the  first  places  in  the  Messiah'a 
kingdom. 

Must  we  admit  in  favor  of  John  a  still  closer  degree  of  select  friendship? 
Must  we  see  in  him  that  disciple  whom  Jesus  had  made  His  friend  in  the 
most  peculiar  sense  of  the  word,  and  who,  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  is  several 
times  designated  as  the  disciple  whom,  Jesus  loved  (xiii.  23;  xix.  26;  xx.  2; 
xxi.  7,  20  f.)  ?  This  was  the  unanimous  opinion  of  the  Church  in  the  age 
which  followed  the  time  of  the  apostles.  Irenseus  says :  "  John,  the  dis- 
ciple of  the  Lord,  who  rested  upon  His  bosom,  also  published  the  gospel 
while  he  lived  at  Ephesus  in  Asia."  1    Polycrates,  the  bishop  of  Ephesus, 

'     » Adv.  Haer.,  iii.  1. 


32  BOOK   I.      THE  APOSTLE  JOHN". 

saya  expressly :  "  John  who  rested  on  the  bosom  of  the  Lord  ...  is  buried 
I  at  Ephesus."  '  John  even  bore  this  title :  the  disciple  who  rests  on  the  bosom 
J     of  the  Master  (/za(fyr7/c  eiriOTTjdiog). 

Liitzelberger  was  the  first  to  call  in  question  this  application  of  the 
passages  quoted  to  John,  and  to  contend  that  the  disciple  loved  by  Jesus 
was  Andrew,  the  brother  of  Peter.  But  Avhy  should  this  apostle,  who,  in 
the  first  part  of  the  Gospel,  is  several  times  designated  by  his  name  (i.  41, 
45 ;  vi.  8 ;  xii.  22)  be,  all  at  once,  mentioned  in  the  second  part  in  this 
anonymous  way  ?  Spath  has  supposed  that  the  beloved  disciple  was  the 
one  who  is  called  Nathanael  (John  i.  46  ff.) ;  and  that  this  name,  which 
signifies  gift  of  God,  designates  this  disciple  as  the  normal  Christian,  the 
true  gift  of  God  to  His  Soil.2  But  why,  in  that  case,  designate  him  some- 
times by  the  name  of  Nathanael  (i.  46 ;  xxi.  2),  and  sometimes  by  this 
mysterious  circumlocution. 

Holtzmann  likewise  identifies  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved  with 
Nathanael,  but  does  so  while  seeing  in  this  personage  only  a  fictitious 
>^<_      being, — the  purely  ideal  type  of  Paulinism.3 

Scholten  *  also  regards  this  unnamed  disciple  as  a  fictitious  personage  ; 
he  is,  in  the  writer's  intention,  the  symbol  of  true  Christianity,  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  Twelve  and  their  imperfect  conception  of  the  gospel. 

Is  it  worth  our  while  to  refute  such  vagaries  of  the  imagination  ?  In 
chap,  xix.,  the  author  certainly  makes  of  this  disciple  a  real  being,  since 
it  is  he  to  whom  Jesus  entrusts  His  mother,  and  who  receives  her  into 
his  house  ;  unless  we  are  ready  also  to  interpret  in  a  symbolic  sense  this 
mother  who  was  thus  entrusted  to  him,  and  to  see  in  her  nothing  else  than 
the  Church  itself.  This  explanation  of  the  sense-would  surpass  in  point 
of  arbitrariness  the  master-pieces  of  allegorizing  of  which  this  passage  has 
sometimes  been  the  occasion  among  Catholic  writers. 

In  reading  the  fourth  Gospel,  we  cannot  doubt  that  the  disciple  whom 
Jesus  loved  was,  in  the  first  place,  one  of  the  Twelve,  and  then,  one  of  the 
three  who  enjoyed  especial  intimacy  with  the  Saviour.  Of  these  three,  he 
cannot  be  Peter,  for  that  apostle  is  named  severahtimes  along  with  the 
beloved  disciple.  No  more  can  he  be  James,  who  died  too  early  (about 
the  year  44,  Acts  xii.)  for  the  report  to  have  been  spread  abroad  in  the 
Church  that  he  would  not  die  (John  xxi.).  John  is,  therefore,  the  only 
one  of  the  three  for  whom  this 'title  can  be  suitable.  We  reach  the  same 
result,  also,  by  another  way.  In  John  xxi.  2,  seven  disciples  are  desig- 
nated :  "  Simon  Peter,  Thomas,  called  Didymus,  Nathanael,  of  Cana  in 
Galilee,  the  sons  of  Zebedee,  and  two  other  disciples."  Among  these 
seven  was  the  one  whom  Jesus  loved,  since  he  plays  a  part  in  the  follow- 
ing scene  (ver.  20  ff.)  Now  he  cannot  be  Peter  or  Thomas  or  Nathanael, 
all  three  of  whom  are  designated  by  name  in  the  course  of  the  Gospel  and 
in  this  very  passage,  nor  again  one  of  the  two  last-mentioned  disciples 

1  Bupebius,  v.  24  («V  E^eVu  «eKoi>T)Tai).  3  Schenkel's  Bibellexicon,  vol.  iv.  art.  JVa- 

iRilgenfold'aZeitechriftfilrwitsenschaftlicke      thanael. 
Theologie,  1868.  4  in  the  brochure :  Der  Apostel  Johannes  in 

Kleinasien. 


A  FOLLOWER  OF   JESUS.  33 

whom  the  author  does  not  name,  doubtless  because  they  did  not  belong 
to  the  number  of  the  Twelve.  It  only  remains,  therefore,  to  choose 
between  the  two  sons  of  Zebedee ;  and  between  these  two,  as  we  have  just 
seen,  no  hesitation  is  possible. 

In  the  conduct  of  John,  during  the  ministry  of  his  Master,  two  features: 
strike  us  ;  a  modesty  carried  even  to  the  extreme  of  reserve,  and  a  vivacity 
reaching  sometimes  even  to  the  point  of  violence.  The  fourth  Gospel  is 
fond  of  relating  to  us  the  striking  sayings  of  Peter ;  it  speaks  of  the  con- 
versations of  Andrew  and  Philip  with  Jesus,  of  the  manifestations  of  devo- 
tion or  of  incredulity  in  Thomas.  In  the  Synoptics  Peter  speaks  at  every 
moment.  But  in  the  one  narrative  and  the  other  John  plays  only  a  very 
secondary  and  obscure  part.  Three  sayings  only  are  ascribed  to  him  in 
our  Gospel,  and  they  are  all  very  remarkable  for  their  brevity :  "  Master, 
where  abidest  thou?"  (i.  38),— "  Lord,  who  is  it?"  (xiii.  25),— "It  is  the 
Lord !  "  (xxi.  7). — Moreover,  of  these  three  expressions  the  first  was  prob- 
ably uttered  by  Andrew ;  and  the  second  came  from  the  mouth  of  John 
only  at  Peter's  suggestion.  What  significance,  then,  has  this  fact,  which 
is  apparently  so  little  in  accord  with  the  altogether  peculiar  relation  of 
this  disciple  to  Jesus  ?  That  John  was  one  of  those  natures  which  live 
more  within  themselves  than  without.  While  Peter  occupied  the  fore- 
ground of  the  scene,  John  kept  himself  in  the  background,  observing,  con- 
templating, drinking  in  love  and  light,  and  satisfied  with  his  character 
of  silent  personage  which  so  well  suited  his  receptive  and  profound 
nature.  We  can  understand  the  charm  which  this  character  must 
have  had  for  our  Lord.  He  found  in  this  relation,  which  remained 
their  common  secret,  that  complement  which  manly  natures  seek  in 
family  ties. 

Along  with  this  feature  which  reveals  a  character  naturally  timid  and 
contemplative,  we  meet  certain  facts  in  which  John  betrays  a  vivacity  of 
impression  capable  of  rising  even  to  passion ;  as  when,  with  his  brother, 
he  proposes  to  Jesus  to  cause  fire  to  descend  from  heaven  on  the  Samar- 
itan village  which  has  refused  to  receive  Him  (Luke  ix.  54),  or  when  he 
is  irritated  at  the  sight  of  a  man  who,  without  joining  himself  to  the  dis- 
ciples, takes  the  liberty  of  casting  out  demons  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  and 
forbids  him  to  continue  acting  in  this  way  (Luke  ix.  49).  We  may  bring 
into  comparison  with  these  two  features  that  request  for  the  first  place  in 
the  Messianic  kingdom,  by  which  we  discover  the  impure  alloy  which  was 
still  mingled  with  his  faith. 

How  can  we  explain  these  two  apparently  so  opposite  traits  of  charac- 
ter? There  exist  natures  which  are  at  once  tender,  ardent  and  timid; 
which  ordinarily  confine  their  impressions  within  themselves,  and  this 
the  more  in  proportion  as  these  impressions  are  the  more  profound.  But 
if  it  happens  that  these  persons  once  cease  to  be  masters  of  themselves, 
the  long  restrained  emotions  then  break  forth  in  sudden  explosions  which 
throw  all  around  them  into  astonishment.  Was  it  not  to  this  order  of 
characters  that  John  and  his  brother  belonged?  If  it  was  so,  could  Jesus 
better  describe  them,  than  by  giving  them  the  surname  of  Boanerges,  sons 
3 


34  BOOK   I.      THE  APOSTLE  JOHN. 

of  thunder1  (Mark  iii.  17)?  I  cannot  think,  as  the  Fathers  believed,  that 
by  this  surname  Jesus  meant  to  mark  the  gift  of  eloquence  which  dis- 
tinguished them.  No  more  am  I  able  to  admit  that  He  wished  to  per- 
petuate thereby  the  remembrance  of  their  passion  in  one  of  the  cases 
indicated  (Luke  ix.  54).  But,  as  electricity  is  slowly  accumulated  in  the 
cloud,  until  it  suddenly  breaks  forth  in  the  lightning  and  the  thunderbolt,  so 
Jesus  observed  in  these  two  loving  and  passionate  beings,  how  the  impres- 
sions were  silently  stored  within  until  the  moment  when,  as  the  result  of 
some  outward  circumstance,  they  violently  broke  forth ;  and  this  is  what 
He  meant  to  describe.  St.  John  is  often  represented  as  a  nature  sweet 
and  tender  even  to  effeminacy.  Do  not  his  writings  before  and  above  all 
things  insist  upon  love  ?  Were  not  the  last  preachings  of  the  old  man : 
"Love  one  another?''  This  is  true;  but  we  must  not  forget  the  traits  of 
a  different  nature  which,  both  in  the  earlier  and  later  periods  of  his  life, 
reveal  in  him  something  decided,  trenchant,  absolute,  and  even  violent? 

In  thus  estimating  the  character  of  John  we  believe  ourselves  to  be  in 
accordance  with  the  truth,  rather  than  Sabatier,  where  he  closes  his  judg- 
ment of  the  apostle  with  these  words  :  "  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  the 
name  of  John  does  not  occur  in  the  Synoptics  except  in  connection  with 
censure."  But  are  we  to  forget  that,  in  one  case,  he  accused  himself 
(Luke  ix.  49) ;  that,  in  another,  it  was  by  excess  of  zeal  for  the  honor  of 
Jesus  that  he  drew  upon  himself  a  reprimand  (Luke  ix.  54) ;  and  that,  in 
the  third  case,  the  jealous  indignation  of  his  fellow-disciples  sprung  from 
the  same  cause  as  the  ambitious  petition  of  the  two  sons  of  Salome  (Mark 
x.  41,  comp.  42  ff.)?  Are  we,  above  all,  to  forget  the  place  which,  accord- 
ing to  the  Synoptics  themselves,  Jesus  had  given  to  John,  as  well  as  to 
Peter  and  James,  in  His  most  intimate  friendship?  Comp.  also  the  inci- 
dent in  Luke  xxii.  8.  The  design  of  this  manner  of  presenting  the  sub- 
ject is  explained  by  what  follows  :  "  There  is  here,"  continues  the  writer, 
"  a  singular  contrast  to  the  image  of  the  beloved  disciple  who  leans  upon 
Jesus'  bosom,  of  that  ideal  disciple  who  conceals  and  reveals  himself  at 
the  same  time  in  the  fourth  Gospel." 2  It  was,  then,  a  stepping-stone  to 
something  further  !    The  biography  was  at  the  service  of  the  criticism. 

If  we  take  account  of  all  the  facts  which  have  been  pointed  out,  we 
shall  recognize  in  John  one  of  those  natures  passionately  devoted  to  the 
ideal  which,  at  the  first  sight,  give  themselves  without  reserve  to  the  being 
who  seems  to  them  to  realize  it.  But  the  devotion  of  such  persons  easily 
takes  on  somewhat  of  exclusiveness  and  intolerance.  Everything  which 
does  not  answer  in  sympathy  completely  to  their  enthusiasm  irritates 
them  and  excites  their  indignation.  They  have  no  comprehension  of 
what  a  dividing  of  the  heart  is,  any  more  than  they  know  how  to  have 
such  a  divided  heart  themselves.  The  whole  for  the  whole  !  Such  is  their 
motto.  Where  the  complete  gift  is  wanting,  there  is  no  longer  anything 
to  their  view.  Such  affections  do  not  exist  without  containing  an  alloy  of 
egoism.    A  divine  work  is  necessary  to  the  end  that  the  devotion  which 

>  Bone  r6ges  (W  J1  '  J3).  »  Encyclopedic  des  Sciences  rehgieuses,  t.  VII.,  p.  173. 


HEAD   OF  THE  JEWISH   CHURCH.  35 

forms  their  basis  may  at  last  come  forth  purified  and  may  appear  in  all 
its  sublimity.  Such  was  John — worthy,  even  in  his  very  faults,  of  the 
intimate  friendship  of  the  best  of  men. 

III. 
JOHN  AT  THE  HEAD  OF  THE  JEWISH-CHRISTIAN  CHURCH.  ' 

John's  part  in  the  Church  after  the  day  of  Pentecost  was  that  which 
such  antecedents  lead  us  to  expect.  On  that  stage  where  Peter  and 
James,  the  brother  of  John,  the  first  martyr  among  the  apostles,  and 
where  even  mere  assistants  of  the  apostles,  such  as  Stephen  and  Philip, 
and  finally  Paul  and  James,  the  Lord's  brother,  moved  and  acted,  John 
appears  only  on  two  occasions : — when  he  goes  up  to  the  temple  with 
Peter  (Acts  hi.),  and  when  he  accompanies  this  same  apostle  to  Samaria, 
in  order  to  finish  the  work  begun  by  Philip  (Acts  viii.).  And  on  each  of 
these  two  occasions  Peter  is  the  one  who  plays  the  principal  part ;  John 
seems  to  be  only  his  assistant.  As  we  have  already  seen,  the  disciple 
whom  Jesus  loved  was  not  a  man  of  action ;  he  did  not  take  the  initiative 
as  a  conqueror;  his  mission,  like  his  talent,  was  of  a  more  inward  character. 
His  hour  was  not  to  strike  until  a  later  time,  after  the  Cburch  was  founded. 
Meanwhile,  a  deep  work,  the  continuation  of  that  which  Jesus  had  begun 
in  him,  was  being  wrought  in  his  soul.  That  promise  which  he  has  him- 
self preserved  for  us — "  The  Spirit  shall  glorify  me  in  you  "  was  finding  its 
realization  in  his  case.  After  having  given  himself  up,  he  found  himself 
again  in  his  glorified  Master,  and  he  gave  himself  up  still  more  fully. 

But  from  this  moment  he  had  a  particular  task  to  fulfill — that  which 
his  dying  Master  had  left  as  a  legacy  to  him.  To  Peter,  Jesus  had  en- 
trusted the  direction  of  the  Church ;  to  John,  the  care  of  His  mother. 

Where  did  Mary  live?  It  is  scarcely  probable  that  she  felt  any  attrac- 
tion towards  a  residence  in  Jerusalem.  Her  dearest  recollections  recalled 
her  to  Galilee.  Undoubtedly,  it  was  there  also,  on  the  shores  of  the  lake 
of  Gennesaret,  that  John  possessed  that  home  where  he  received  her  and 
lavished  upon  her  the  attentions  of  filial  piety.  This  circumstance  like- 
wise serves  to  explain  why,  in  those  earliest  times,  he  took  little  part  in 
missionary  work.  Had  he  lived  at  Jerusalem,  Paul  would  undoubtedly 
have  seen  him,  as  well  as  Peter  and  James,  at  the  time  of  his  first  visit  to 
that  city  after  his  conversion  (Gal.  i.  18,  19). 

Later  traditions,  yet  traditions  which  nothing  prevents  us  from  regarding 
as  well-founded,  place  the  death  of  Mary  about  the  year  48.  After  that 
time,  John  undoubtedly  took  a  more  considerable  part  in  the  direction  of 
the  Christian  work.  At  the  time  of  the  assembly,  commonly  called  the 
council  of  Jerusalem  (Acts  xv.),  in  50  or  51,  he  is  one  of  the  apostles  with 
whom  Paul  confers  in  the  capital,  and  the  latter  ranks  him  (Gal.  ii.)  among 
those  who  were  regarded  as  the  pillars  of  the  Church.1  An  important  and 
much  discussed  question  with  respect  to  John  presents  itself  at  this  point. 
i  Gal.  ii.  9 :  "  James,  Cephas  and  John,  who  were  thought  to  be  pillars. 


36  BOOK   I.      THE  APOSTLE  JOHN. 

The  Tubingen  school  ascribes  to  these  three  personages,  James,  Peter 
and  John,  who  represented  the  Jewish-Christian  Church  at  that  time  over 
against  Paul  and  Barnabas,  an  opinion  opposed  to  that  of  these  last  as  to 
the  matter  of  maintaining  legal  observances  in  the  Church.  The  only  dif- 
ference which  it  recognizes  between  the  apostles  and  the  false  brethren  privily 
brought  in,  of  whom  Paul  speaks  (Gal.  ii.  4), — and  it  is  not  to  the  advantage 
of  the  former, — is  this:  the  false  brethren,  the  Pharisaical  intruders,  held 
their  ground  in  opposition  to  Paul  and  attempted  to  make  him  yield,  while 
the  apostles,  intimidated  by  his  energy  and  by  the  eclat  of  his  successes 
among  the  Gentiles,  abandoned  in  fact  their  convictions,  and  agreed,  in 
spite  of  these  men,  to  divide  with  him  the  missionary  work.  Thus  would 
be  reduced  to  insignificance  the  import  of  that  sign  of  co-operation  which 
the  apostles  gave  to  Paul  and  Barnabas,  in  extending  to  them  the  right 
hand  of  fellowship  at  the  moment  when  they  separated  from  each  other 
(ver.  9). 

We  can  readily  understand  the  interest  which  attaches  to  this  question. 
If  such  was  really  the  personal  conviction  of  John,  it  is  obvious  that  he 
could  not  be  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  or  that  he  could  be  so  only 
on  the  condition  of  having  previously  passed  through  the  crisis  of  a  com- 
plete transformation.  Schurer  himself,  who  is  independent  of  the  Tubingen 
point  of  view,  says : l  "  The  John  of  the  second  chapter  of  Galatians,  who 
disputes  with  Paul  respecting  the  law,  cannot  have  written  our  fourth 
Gospel." 

But  is  it  true  that  the  abrogation  of  the  law  for  the  converted  Gentiles 
was  a  concession  which  St.  Paul  was  obliged  to  wrest  from  the  apostles, 
contrary  to  their 'inward  conviction  ?  Is  it  true,  in  general,  that  there  was 
on  the  question  of  the  law  a  fundamental  difference  between  Paul  and  the 
Twelve  ?  This  question  has  been  discussed  beyond  measure  during  the 
last  thirty  years,  and  I  do  not  think  that,  on  the  whole,  the  scale  has  turned 
in  the  direction  of  Baur's  assertions.  I  will  only  take  up  here  one  decisive 
passage — the  one  which  that  school  most  habitually  puts  forward,  and 
which,  to  the  view  of  Hilgenfeld,  is,  as  it  were,  its  impregnable  fortress.  It 
is  Gal.  ii.  3,  4 :  "  But  Titus  who  was  with  me,  being  a  Greek,  was  not  com- 
pelled to  be  circumcised,  and  that  because  of  (tita  de)  the  false  brethren 
brought  in  privily  ..."  The  following  is  the  way  in  which  Hilgenfeld 
reasons :— -Paul  does  not  say  :  I  did  not  yield  to  the  false  brethren ;  but,  I 
did  not  yield  because  of  tliem.  To  whom,  then,  did  he  make  resistance? 
Evidently  to  others  than  these.  These  others  can  only  be  the  apostles.  It 
was  the  apostles,  therefore,  who  demanded  the  circumcision  of  Titus.  Con- 
sequently they  claimed,  and  John  with  them,  the  right  to  impose  circum- 
cision on  the  Gentiles.  The  observation  from  which  Hilgenfeld  starts  is 
correct;  but  the  conclusion  which  he  draws  from  it  is  false.  The  apostles 
asked  of  Paul  the  circumcision  of  Titus,  and  he  would  not  yield  to  them  be- 
cause of  the  false  brethren.  Such,  indeed,  is  the  fact.  But  what  does  it 
prove  ?    That  the  false  brethren  demanded  this  circumcision  in  an  alto- 

i  Theol.  Liter.-Zcit,  1870,  No.  14.    , 


HEAD   OF  THE  JEWISH   CHURCH.  37 

gether  different  spirit  from  the  Twelve.  They  demanded  it  as  an  obliga- 
tion, while  the  apostles  asked  it  of  Paul  only  as  a  free  concession  in  favor 
of  the  Christians  of  Jerusalem,  who  were  offended  at  the  thought  of  inter- 
course with  an  uncircumcised  person.  This  is  the  reason  why  Paul  was 
able  to  say :  Apart  from  the  false  brethren,  I  might  have  yielded  to  the 
Twelve  with  that  compliance  (ry  vnorayy,  ver.  5)  which  every  Christian 
should  exhibit  towards  his  brethren  in  the  things  which  are  in  themselves 
indifferent.  And  this  is  what  he  really  did  every  time  that  he  put  himself 
under  the  law  with  those  who  were  under  the  law  (1  Cor.  ix.  20);  comp.  the 
circumcision  of  Timothy.  But  it  was  impossible  for  him  at  this  time  to 
act  thus  because  of  the  false  brethren,  who  were  prepared  to  make  use  of  that 
concession  in  order  to  turn  it  to  account  in  relation  to  the  Gentiles  as  an 
obligatory  precedent.  The  Twelve  understood  this  reason,  and  did  not  in- 
sist. If  the  case  stands  thus,  the  question  is  solved.  As  a  matter  of  right, 
the  Twelve  did  not  impose  the  law  upon  the  Gentiles.  They  personally 
observed  it,  with  the  Christians  of  Jewish  origin,  but  not  as  a  condition  of 
salvation,  since,  in  that  case,  they  could  not  have  exempted  the  Gentiles 
from  it.  They  observed  it  until  God,  who  had  imposed  this  system  upon 
them,  should  Himself  put  an  end  to  it.  Paul  had  anticipated  them  in 
knowledge  on  this  point  only :  that  to  his  view  the  cross  was  already  for 
the  Jews  themselves  the  expected  abrogation  (Gal.  ii.  19,  20).  For  those 
of  the  apostles  who,  like  St.  John,  survived  the  fall  of  the  temple,  that  event 
must  naturally  have  removed  the  last  doubt  in  relation  to  themselves  and 
their  nation. 

This  view  does  not  force  us  to  establish  a  conflict  between  the  epistles 
of  Paul  and  the  narrative  of  the  Acts.  It  is  likewise  in  accord  with  our 
Synoptic  gospels,  which  are  filled  with  declarations  of  Jesus  containing 
what  involves  the  abolition  of  the  law.  That  sentence :  "  It  is  not  that 
which  entereth  into  the  man  which  defileth  the  man,  but  that  which 
cometh  out  of  the  heart  of  the  man,"1  contains  in  principle  the  total  abolition 
of  the  Levitical  system.  That  other  saying :  "  The  Son  of  man  is  Lord 
even  of  the  Sabbath,"2  saps  the  foundation  of  the  Sabbath  ordinance  in  its 
Mosaic  form,  and  thereby  the  entire  ceremonial  institution  of  which  the 
Sabbath  was  the  centre.  By  comparing  His  new  economy  to  a  new  gar- 
ment, which  must  be  substituted  as  a  whole  for  the  old,s  Jesus  gives  ex- 
pression to  a  view  of  the  relation  between  the  Gospel  and  the  law  beyond 
which  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles  himself  could  not  go.  And  it  is  the 
apostles  who  have  transmitted  all  these  words  to  the  Church;  and  yet  they 
did  this,  it  is  said,  without  at  all  comprehending  their  practical  applica- 
tion !  Independently,  then,  of  the  epistles  of  Paul  and  the  Acts,  we  are 
obliged  to  affirm  that  what  is  (wrongly)  called  Pnulinism  must  have  ex- 
isted, as  a  more  or  less  latent  conviction,  in  the  minds  of  the  apostles  from 
the  time  of  Jesus'  ministry.  The  death  of  Christ,  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and 
the  work  of  Paul  could  not  fail  to  develop  these  germs. 

Irenseus  has  very  faithfully  described  this  state  of  things  in  these  words: 

1  Matt.  xv.  18-20;  Mark  vii.  18-20.  2  Mark  ii.  28.  *  Matt.  ix.  1C  and  the  parallels.    ' 


38  BOOK   I.      THE  APOSTLE   JOHN. 

"They  themselves  (the  apostles)  persevered  in  the  old  observances,  con- 
ducting themselves  piously  with  regard  to  the  institution  of  the  law ;  but, 
as  for  us  Gentiles,  they  granted  us  liberty,  committing  us  to  the  Holy 
Spirit." " 

IV. 

JOHN  IN  ASIA  MINOR. 

After  the  council  of  Jerusalem,  we  lose  all  trace  of  John  until  the  time 
when  tradition  depicts  him  as  accomplishing  his  apostolic  ministry  in  the 
midst  of  the  churches  of  Asia  Minor.  It  is  not  probable  that  he  repaired 
to  those  remote  countries  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  He 
undoubtedly  accompanied  the  Jewish-Christian  Church  when  it  emigrated 
to  Perea  at  the  time  when  the  war  against  the  Romans  broke  out.  This 
departure  took  place  about  the  year  67 .2  Only  at  a  later  period,  when,  in 
consequence  of  the  death  of  Paul,  and  perhaps  of  the  death  of  his  assist- 
ants in  Asia  Minor,  Titus  and  Timothy,  the  churches  of  that  region, 
which  were  so  important,  found  themselves  deprived  of  every  apostolic 
leader,  John  removed  thither.  He  does  not  seem  to  have  been  the  only 
apostle  or  apostolic  personage  who  made  choice  of  this  place  of  residence. 
History  speaks  of  the  ministry  of  Philip,  either  the  apostle  or  the  deacon, 
at  Hierapolis ;  we  find,  also,  some  indications  of  a  sojourn  of  Andrew  in 
Ephesus.3  As  Thiersch  says,  "  The  centre  of  gravity  of  the  Church  was 
no  longer  at  Jerusalem,  and  it  was  not  yet  at  Rome ;  it  was  at  Ephesus." 
Like  the  circle  of  golden  candlesticks,4  the  numerous  and  flourishing 
churches  founded  by  Paul  in  Ionia  and  Phrygia  were  the  luminous 
point  towards  which  the  eyes  of  all  Christendom  were  directed.  "  From 
the  fall  of  Jerusalem,"  says  Liicke,  "  even  into  the  second  century, 
Asia  Minor  was  the  most  living  portion  of  the  Church."  What  excited 
an  interest  on  behalf  of  these  churches  was  not  merely  the  energy  of 
their  faith ;  it  was  the  intensity  of  the  struggle  which  they  had  to  main- 
tain against  heresy.  "  After  my  departure,"  St.  Paul  had  said  to  the 
pastors  of  Ephesus  and  Miletus  (Acts  xx.  29,  30),  "  ravenous  wolves  shall 
enter  in  among  you  not  sparing  the  flock ;  and  from  among  your  own 
selves  shall  men  arise  speaking  perverse  things,  to  draw  away  the  disci- 
ples after  them."  This  prophecy  was  fulfilled.  It  is  not  surprising,  there- 
fore, that  John,  one  of  the  last  survivors  among  the  apostles,  should  have 
gone  to  supply  in  those  regions  the  place  of  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles, 
and  to  water,  as  Apollos  had  formerly  done  in  Corinth,  that  which  Paul 
had  planted. 

The  accounts  of  this  residence  of  John  in  Asia  are  numerous  and  posi- 
tive. Nevertheless,  Keim  and  Scholten,  after  the  example  of  Vogel, 
Rcuterdahl,  and  especially  Lutzelberger,  have  in  these  latter  days  contro- 
verted the  truth  of  this  tradition.  The  former  thinks  that  the  personage, 
named  John,  whom  Poly  carp  had  known,  was  not  the  apostle,  but  the 

1  A<iv.  Harr.  iii.  12.  a  So  in  the  so-called  Fragment  of  Muratori. 

*  Ewald,  Gcsch.  des  Volte  Israel,  vol.  vi.,  p.  642.  *  Apoc.  i.  12,  20. 


IN  ASIA  MINOR.  39 

presbyter  of  the  same  name,  who  must  have  lived  at  Ephesus  about  the 
end  of  the  first  century ;  and  that  Irenaeus  erroneously,  and  even  with 
some  willingness,  imagined  that  this  master  of  his  own  master  was  the 
apostle.  This  was  the  starting-point  of  the  error  which  was  afterwards 
so  generally  disseminated.  Scholten  believes,  rather,  that  as  the  Apoca- 
lypse was  falsely  ascribed  to  the  Apostle  John,  and  as  the  author  of  that 
book  appeared  to  have  lived  in  Asia  (Apoc.  ii.,  hi.),  the  residence  of  the 
Apostle  John  in  that  region  was  inferred  from  these  false  premises. 
^  Let  us  begin  by  establishing  the  tradition ;  we  shall  afterwards  appre- 
ciate the  importance  of  it. 

Irenaeus  says:  "All  the  presbyters  who  met  with  John,  the  disciple  of 
the  Lord,  in  Asia,  give  testimony  that  he  conveyed  to  them  these  things  ; 
for  he  lived  with  them  even  to  the  time  of  Trajan.  And  some  among 
them  saw  not  only  John,  but  also  other  apostles." »  This  whole  passage^ 
but  especially  the  last  sentence,  implies  that  the  person  in  question  is  the 
apostle,  and  not  some  other  John.  This  is  still  more  precisely  set  forth  in 
the  following  words  :  "  Afterwards,  John,  the  disciple  of  the  Lord,  he  who 
leaned  on  His  breast,  published  the  gospel  while  he  dwelt  at  Ephesus,  in 
Asia." »  We  read  elsewhere :  "  The  church  of  Ephesus,  which  was  founded 
by  Paul  and  in  which  John  lived  until  the  time  of  Trajan,  is  also  a  truth- 
ful witness  of  the  tradition  of  the  apostles."  3  And  further  :  "  Polycarp 
had  not  only  been  taught  by  the  apostles,  and  lived  with  several  men  who 
had  seen  Christ,  but  he  had  been  constituted  bishop  in  the  church  of 
Smyrna  by  the  apostles  who  were  in  Asia ;  and  we  ourselves  saw  him  in 
our  early  youth,  since  he  lived  a  very  long  time  and  became  very  aged, 
and  departed  this  life  after  a  glorious  martyrdom,  having  constantly  taught 
what  he  had  heard  from  the  apostles."  *  It  cannot  be  doubted,  therefore,  • 
that  the  following  words,  having  reference  to  the  Apocalypse,  apply  to 
the  apostle :  "  This  number  (666)  is  found  in  all  the  accurate  and  ancient 
manuscripts,  and  it  is  attested  by  all  those  who  saiv  John  face  to  face."  5 

Thus  speaks  Irenaeus  in  his  principal  work.  Besides  this,  we  have  two 
letters  of  his  in  which  he  expresses  himself  in  the  same  way.  One  of 
them  is  addressed  to  Florinus,  his  old  fellow-pupil  under  Polycarp,  who 
had  embraced  the  Gnostic  doctrines.  Irenaeus  says  to  him  :  "  These  are 
not  the  teachings  which  the  elders  who  preceded  us  and  who  lived  after  the 
apostles  handed  down  to  thee ;  for  I  saw  thee,  when  I  was  still  a  child,  in 
lower  Asia  with  Polycarp.  .  .  .  And  I  could  still  show  thee  the  place  where 
he  sat  when  he  taught  and  gave  an  account  of  his  relations  with  John  and  with 
the  others  who  saw  the  Lord,  and  how  he  spoke  of  what  he  had  heard  from 
them  respecting  the  Lord,  His  miracles  and  His  doctrine,  and  how  he  re- 
counted, in  full  accord  with  the  Scriptures,  all  that  which  he  had  received 
from  the  eye-witnesses  of  the  Word  of  life." 6  The  other  letter  was  addressed 

1  As  far  as  the  word  Trajan,  according  to  «iii.  3.  4.  (Eusebius,  iii.  2.1.  4). 

the  Greek  text  preserved  hy  Eusebius,  H.  E.,  4  iii.  :j.  4.  (Eusebius,  iv.  14). 

iii.  23. 3;  the  last  words  according  to  the  Latin  &  v.  30.  1.  (Eusebius,  v.  8). 

translation :  Adv.  Haer.,  ii.  22.  5.  «  Eusebius,  v.  20. 

» Irenaeus,  iii.  1. 1,  (Eusebius,  v.  8.  4).   ] 


40  BOOK   I.      THE  APOSTLE  JOHN. 

by  Irena?us  to  Victor,  Bishop  of  Rome,  on  occasion  of  the  controversy 
carried  on  with  regard  to  the  Passover : *  "  When  the  blessed  Polycarp 
visited  Rome  in  the  time  of  Anicetus,  slight  differences  of  opinion  having 
become  manifest  respecting  certain  points,  peace  was  very  soon  concluded. 
And  they  did  not  even  give  themselves  up  to  a  dispute  upon  the  principal 
question.  For  Anicetus  could  not  dissuade  Polycarp  from  observing  [the 
14th  of  Nisan,  as  the  Paschal  day],  inasmuch  as  he  had  always  observed 
it  with  John,  the  disciple  of  the  Lord,  and  the  other  apostles  with  whom  he 
had  lived.  And,  on  his  side,  Polycarp  could  not  persuade  Anicetus  to 
observe  [the  same  day],  the  latter  replying  that  he  must  maintain  the  cus- 
tom which  he  had  received  from  his  predecessors.  This  being  the  state 
of  things,  they  gave  each  other  the  communion,  and  in  the  assembly 
Anicetus  yielded  the  office  of  administering  the  Eucharist  to  Polycarp,  by 
way  of  honor ;  and  they  separated  in  peace."  Thus  at  Rome  and  in  Gaul, 
no  less  than  in  Asia  Minor,  Polycarp  was  certainly  regarded  as  the  disciple 
of  John  the  apostle,  and  the  arguments  of  the  bishops  of  Rome  were  ren- 
dered powerless  twice  in  the  second  century — in  160  (or  rather  155)  and 
190 — as  they  met  this  fact  which  was,  to  the  view  of  all,  raised  above  all 
controversy. 

We  find  in  Asia  Minor,  about  180,  another  witness  of  the  same  tradi- 
tion. Apollonius,  an  anti-Montanist  writer,  related,  at  that  time,  that 
John  had  raised  a  dead  man  to  life  at  Ephesus.  And  it  is  to  the  apostle, 
certainly,  that  he  attributed  this  act.  For  he  is  speaking  here  of  the 
author  of  the  Apocalypse,  and  we  know  that,  at  this  period,  the  churches 
of  Asia  had  no  doubt  as  to  the  composition  of  that  book  by  the  apostle. 

But,  already  before  Irenaeus  and  Apollonius,  Justin  has  some  words 
relative  to  John,  which  imply  the  idea  of  his  residence  in  Asia.2  He  says  : 
"  A  man  among  us,  one  of  the  apostles  of  Christ,  has  prophesied  in  the  revela- 
tion which  was  given  to  him  (h  anoKaXvtyei  yevofievr)  avTu)."  As  the  fact  of 
the  composition  of  the  Apocalypse  in  Asia  is  not  doubtful  (although  Schol- 
ten  seems  desirous  of  disputing  it),  it  follows  from  this  statement  of  Justin 
that  he  had  no  doubt  that  the  apostle  had  resided  in  Asia.  This  declara- 
tion is  the  more  interesting  since  it  is  found  in  the  account  of  a  public 
discussion  which  Justin  had  to  maintain  at  Ephesus  itself  with  a  learned 
Jew.  .  This  work3  dates  from  150-160. 

We  possess,  finally,  an  official  document,  emanating  from  the  bishops 
of  Asia  towards  the  close  of  the  second  century,  which  attests  their 
unanimous  conviction  in  regard  to  the  matter  with  which  we  are  engaged. 
It  is  the  letter  which  Polycrates,  bishop  of  Ephesus,  addressed  to  Victor 
under  the  same  circumstances  which  occasioned  that  of  Irenaeus  quoted 
above  (about  190).  He — a  man  in  whose  family  the  office  of  bishop  of 
that  metropolis  was,  as  it  were,  hereditary  (since  seven  of  his  relatives 
had  already  filled  it  before  him)— writes,  with  the  assent  of  all  the  bishops 

1  Euseb.,  v.  24.  and  relates  that  a  dead  man  had  been  raised 

2  Eusebius,  t.  28  :    "  He  uses  also  testimo-       at  Ephesus  by  the  same  John." 
nies  derived  from  the  Apocalypse  of  John,  'Against  Trypho  the  Jew. 


IN  ASIA   MINOR.  41 

of  the  province  who  surround  him,  the  following  words ;  "  We  celebrate 
the  true  day.  .  .  .  For  some  great  lights  are  extinguished  in  Asia  and  will 
rise  again  there  at  the  return  of  the  Lord.  .  .  .  Philip,  one  of  the  twelve 
apostles,  .  .  .  and  John,  who  reclined  on  the  Lord's  bosom,  who  was  high 
priest  and  wore  the  plate  of  gold,  and  who  was  a  witness  and  teacher,  and 
who  is  buried  at  Ephesus.  .  .  .  All  these  celebrated  the  Passover  on  the 
fourteenth  day,  according  to  the  gospel."1 

Such  are  the  testimonies  proceeding  from  Asia  Minor.  They  are  not 
the  only  ones.  We  can  add  to  them  one  coming  from  Egypt.  Clement 
of  Alexandria,  about  190,  in  the  preamble  to  the  story  of  the  young  man 
whom  John  reclaimed  from  his  errors,  writes  these  words :  "  After  the 
tyrant  was  dead,  John  returned  from  the  island  of  Patmos  to  Ephesus, 
and  there  he  visited  the  surrounding  countries  in  order  to  constitute 
bishops  and  organize  the  churches." 2 

We  omit  the  later  witnesses  (Tertullian,  Origen,  Jerome,  Eusebius),  who 
naturally  depend  on  the  older  accounts.3 

By  what  means  is  the  attempt  made  to  shake  so  ancient  and  widely 
established  a  tradition  ? 

The  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  says  Keim,  do  not  speak  of  such  a  residence 
of  John  in  Asia.  Is  it  a  serious  man  who  speaks  thus  ?  With  such  logic, 
answers  Leuschner,  it  might  also  be  proved  that  Paul  is  not  yet  dead  even 
to  the  present  hour.  As  if  the  book  of  Acts  were  a  biography  of  the 
apostles,  and  as  if  it  did  not  end  before  the  time  when  John  lived  in  Asia ! 

But  the  silence  of  the  Epistles  to  the  Ephesians  and  Colossians,  and  of 
the  Pastoral  Epistles?  adds  Scholten.  As  if  the  composition  of  these 
writings  in  the  second  century  were  a  fact  so  thoroughly  demonstrated 
that  it  could  be  made  the  starting  point  for  new  conclusions !  Can  critiT 
cal  presumption  go  further? 

With  more  show  of  probability  is  the  silence  of  the  epistles  of  Igna- 
tius and  Polycarp  alleged.  Ignatius  recalls  to  the  Ephesians,  Poly  carp 
to  the  Philippians,  the  ministry  of  Paul  in  their  churches;  they  are  both 
silent  with  respect  to  that  of  John  in  Asia.  As  to  Ignatius,  these  are  the 
terms  in  which  he  recalls  the  Apostle  Paul  to  the  Ephesians  :  "  You  are 
the  place  of  passage  (ndpodog)  of  those  who  have  been  taken  up  to  God,  the 
co-initiated  with  Paul  the  consecrated  one  .  .  .  ,  in  whose  footsteps  may 
I  be  found ! 4 "  The  question  is  not  of  a  residence  of  Paul  in  Ephesus 
in  general,  but  quite  specially  of  his  last  passage  through  Asia  Minor, 
when,  as  he  was  repairing  to  Rome,  he  gave  to  the  elders  of  those 
churches  the  farewell  words  reported  in  the  Acts,  and,  in  some  sort,  asso- 
ciated them  with  the  consecration  of  his  martyrdom.     The  analogy  of 

1  Eusebius  v.  24.  3  (comp.  iii.  31.  3).  book  of  pure  imagination,  without  tho  least 
*Ti?  o  crw^dju.ei'os  ttA(Wios,  c.  42  (comp.  historical  value,  composed,  according  to  Zahn, 
Eusebius  iii.  24).  between  400  and  COO.  The  Johannean  frag- 
3  We  omit,  with  still  stronger  reason,  the  ments  in  the  work  of  Leucius,  which  Zahn 
work  of  Prochorus,  recently  published  by  is  disposed  to  carry  back  as  far  as  130,  do  not 
Zahn  (Acta  Johannis),  of  which  a  young  seem  to  have  any  greater  value.  See  Over- 
scholar,— Max  Bonnet,  professor  at  Mont-  beck  in  the  Thcol.  Liter.  Zeit.,  1881,  No.  3. 
pelier,  is  preparing  a  new  edition.    It  is  a  *Ad  Eph.,  c.  12.                                        ■    > 


42  BOOK   I.      THE  APOSTLE   JOHN. 

that  moment  with  the  position  of  Ignatius,  when  he  wrote  to  the  Ephe- 
sians  on  his  way  to  Rome,  is  obvious.  There  was  no  similar  comparison 
to  be  made  with  the  life  of  John.  Moreover,  the  eleventh  chapter  of  this 
same  letter  furnishes,  perhaps,  an  allusion  to  the  presence  of  John  at 
Ephesus  :  "  The  Christians  of  Ephesus,"  says  Ignatius,  "  have  always 
lived  in  entire  harmony  (cwyveaav)  with  the  apostles,  in  the  strength  of  Jesus 
Christ."  Finally,  we  must  not  forget  that  Ignatius  was  from  Syria,  and 
that  he  had  not  been  acquainted  with  John  in  Asia  Minor. 

Polycarp,  writing  to  Macedonian  Christians,  had  no  particular  reason 
for  recalling  to  them  John's  ministry  at  Ephesus.  If  he  speaks  to  them 
of  Paul,  it  is  because  this  apostle  had  founded  and  several  times  visited 
their  church ;  and  if  he  mentions  Ignatius,  it  is  because  the  venerated 
martyr  had  just  passed  through  Philippi,  at  that  very  moment,  as  he  was 
going  to  Rome. 

The  similar  objection,  derived  from  the  account  of  the  death  of  Poly- 
carp, in  the  Acts  of  his  martyrdom,  by  the  church  of  Smyrna,  is  no  more 
serious.  Sixty  years  had  passed  since  John's  death,  and  yet  that  church 
could  not  have  written  a  letter  without  making  mention  of  him !  Hilgen- 
feld,  moreover,  rightly  notices  the  title  of  apostolic  teacher  given  to  Polycarp 
(chap.  18),  which  recalls  his  personal  relations  with  one  or  with  several 
of  the  apostles. 

Keim  and  Scholten  find  the  most  decisive  argument  in  the  silence  of 
Papias ;  they  even  see  in  the  words  of  this  Father  the  express  denial  of  all 
connection  with  the  apostle.  Irena3us,  it  is  true,  did  not  understand 
Papias  in  this  way.  He  thinks,  on  the  contrary,  that  he  can  call  him  a 
hearer  of  John  ('ludwov  anovoTi/g).  But,  it  is  said,  precisely  at  this  point  is 
an  error,  which  Eusebius  has  noticed  and  corrected  by  a  more  thorough 
study  of  the  terms  which  Papias  employed.  The  importance  of  the  testi- 
mony of  Papias  in  this  question  is  manifest.  Leimbach  cites  as  many  as 
forty-five  writers  who  have  treated  this  subject  in  these  most  recent  times. 
We  are  compelled  to  study  it  more  closely. 

First  of  all,  what  is  the  epoch  of  Papias,  and  what  the  date  of  his  work? 
Iremcus  adds  to  the  title  of  hearer  of  John,  which  he  gives  to  him,  that  of 
companion  of  Polycarp  (Uo^vKapnov  halpoq).  This  term  denotes  a  contempo- 
rary. Now,  the  most  recent  investigations  place  the  martyrdom  of  Poly- 
carp in  155  or  156,1  and  this  date  appears  to  be  generally  adopted  at  the 
present  day  (Renan,  Lipsius,  Hilgenfeld).  As  Polycarp  himself  declares 
that  he  had  spent  eighty-six  years  in  the  service  of  the  Lord,  his  birth 
must  be  placed,  at  the  latest,  in  the  year  70.  If  Papias  was  his  contempo- 
rary, therefore,  he  lived  between  70  and  160;  and  if  John  died  about  the 
year  100,  this  Father  might,  chronologically  speaking,  have  been  in  con- 
tact with  the  apostle  up  to  the  age  of  thirty.  Irenseus,  at  the  same  time, 
calls  Papias  a  man  of  Christian  antiquity  {apxdioc  avyp) ;  Papias  belonged, 
then,  like  Polycarp,  to  the  generation  which  immediately  followed  the 

1Waddinp;ton,  Mhnoirea  de  VAcadimie  des  Inscriptions  et  Belles-Lettres,  tome  xxvi.,  2* 
partic,  p.  232  ct  suiv. 


IN  ASIA  MINOR.  43 

apostles.  There  is,  finally,  in  the  very  fragment  which  we  are  about  to 
study,  an  expression  which  leads  us  to  the  same  conclusion.  Papias  says 
that  he  informed  himself  concerning  "  that  whichAndrew,  and  then  Peter, 
Philip,  etc.,  etc.,  said  (e'nrev),  and  that  which  Aristion  and  John  the  Presby- 
ter, the  disciples  of  the  Lord,  say  (leyovotv)."  This  contrast  between  the 
past  said  and  the  present  say  is  too  marked  to  be  accidental.  It  implies, 
as  at  the  present  day  Keim,  Hilgenfeld  and  Mangold  acknowledge,  that 
at  the  time  when  Papias  wrote  the  two  last-named  personages  were  still 
living ; '  and,  since  they  are  both  designated  as  personal  disciples  of  Jesus, 
they  can  only,  at  the  latest,  have  lived  until  about  the  year  110-120.  It 
was,  then,  at  this  period  also — at  the  latest — that  Papias  wrote.  He  was 
then  thirty  to  forty  years  old.2 

Now  the  following  is  the  fragment  quoted  by  Eusebius.*  The  question 
will  be  whether  the  personal  relation  of  Papias  with  John  the  apostle  is 
affirmed,  as  Irenseus  thinks,  or  excluded,  as  Eusebius  claims,  by  the  terms 
employed  in  this  much  discussed  passage. 

"Now  I  shall  not  fail  to  add  to  my  explanations  also  (o-uy/caxardfat4  rdic 
ipfiTivsiaiq)  all  that  which  I  have  formerly  very  well  learned  and  very  well 
remembered  from  the  elders  (rzapa  tuv  npeoflvTepuv),  while  guaranteeing  to 
thee  the  truth  of  the  same.  For  I  did  not  take  pleasure,  like  the  great 
mass,  in  those  who  relate  many  things,  but  in  those  who  teach  true  things ; 
nor  in  those  who  spread  abroad  strange  commandments,  but  in  those  who 
spread  abroad  the  commandments  given  to  faith  by  the  Lord  and  that 
come5  from  the  truth  itself.  And  if,  at  times,  also,  one  of  those  who 
accompanied  the  elders  came  to  me  («  6k  nov  nal  napaKolovdrinug  nq  rdiq 
npeoftvrepoiG  IWoi),  I  inquired  about  the  words  of  the  elders  (jovg  tuv  izpeo- 
Jivrepuv  avenpivov  X6yovg)  :  what  Andrew  said,  or  Peter  (ri  'Avdpeac  fj  ri  TJe- 
Tpoq  elrcev),  or  Philip,  or  Thomas,  or  James,  or  John,6  or  Matthew,  or  some' 
other  of  the  disciples  of  the  Lord  (7  rig  erepoc  tuv  tov  Kvpiov  nadrjTuv) ;  then 
about  what  Aristion  and  the  presbyter  John,  the  disciples  of  the  Lord,  say 
(d  re7  'Apioriuv  nai  6  irpeajivTEpoq  'ludvvijg,  oi  tov  Kvpiov  fiadj]Tal,  Xiyovatv) ,  for  I 

iZahn  and  Riggenbach  think  that  thi3  refer  either  to  the  commandments  or  to  the 
present  say  may  denote  merely  the  perma-  individuals  themselves, 
nence  of  the  testimony  of  these  men  ;  Leim-  8  M.  Renan  has  proposed  to  reject  from  the 
bach :  that  it  arises  from  the  fact  that  Papias  text  the  words:  or  John.  This  is  absolutely 
thinks  that  he  still  hears  them  speak.— All  arbitrary,  and  in  that  case  the  conclusion  of 
this  would  be  possible  only  in  so  far  as  the  Eusebius  respecting  the  existence  of  a  sec- 
contrast  with  the  past  tense  had  said  did  not  ond  John  would  lose  its  foundation, 
exist.  7  Papias  here  substitutes  for  the  interroga- 

*  There  must  be  a  resolute  determination  tive  pronoun  ri  (employed  in  the  preceding 
to  create  a  history  after  one's  own  fancy,  to  clause)  the  relative  pronoun  a,  because  the 
place,  as  Volk mar  ventures  to  do,  the  work  of  idea  of  interrogation  is  remote  This  o  is 
Papias  in  1651  also  the  object  of  aviKpivov,  parallel  with  the 

a  H.  E.  iii.  39.  preceding  object  Aoyous  (so  also  Holtzmann). 

♦  This  reading,  (and  not  <rvi>Ta£ ai),  appears  No  one,  I  think,  will  be  tempted  to  accept 
certain;  see  Leimbach.  Leimbach's  translation  :  ".  .  .  or  which  (tw)  of 

6  The  ambiguity  of  our  translation  repro-  the  disciples  of  the  Lord  [has  related]  that 

duces  the  possible  meaning  of  the  two  read-  which    Aristion   or   John    says  .  .  ."     The 

ings     (napayivo/ifva^     and     TrapaYieonepois)  position  of  the  t«,  placed  as  it  is  after  a,  and 

according  to  which  the  words :  and  that  come  not  after  'ApumW,  is  sufficient  to  refute  this. 


44  BOOK   I.      THE  APOSTLE  JOHN. 

did  not  suppose  that  that  which  is  derived  from  hooks  could  be  as  useful 
to  me  as  that  which  comes  from  the  living  and  permanent  word." 

This  passage  is  made  up  of  two  distinct  paragraphs,  of  which  the  sec- 
ond begins  with  the  words :  "And  if  at  times  (now  and  then)  also." 
Hilgenfeld  and  others  think  that  the  second  paragraph  is  only  the  com- 
mentary on  the  first,  and  refers  to  the  same  fact.  But  this  interpretation 
does  violence  to  the  text,  as  the  first  words  prove :  And  if  at  times 
also  (el  6k  irov  nai).  This  transition  indicates  an  advance,  not  an  identity. 
The  two  paragraphs,  therefore,  refer  to  different  facts. 

In  the  former  paragraph,  Papias  evidently  speaks  of  what  he  has  favor- 
ably received  and  remembered  from  the  elders  themselves — that  is  to  say,  by 
a  communication  from  them  to  him  personally.  This  is  implied  by  the 
use  of  the  preposition  napa  (from),  the  regular  sense  of  which  is  that  of 
direct  communication;  2.  By  the  adverb  vote  (formerly),  which,  by  plac- 
ing these  communications  in  a  past  already  remote,  shows  that  such  a 
relation  has  for  a  long  time  been  no  more  possible,  and  that  it,  conse- 
quently, belongs  to  the  youth  of  the  author. 

The  essential  question  in  relation  to  the  meaning  of  this  first  paragraph 
is  the  following:  Who  arc1  these  elders  whom  Papias  heard  in  his  youth? 
They  cannot  be,  as  Weiffe'fibach  has  maintained,  the  elders  or  presbyters 
appointed  in  the  churches  by  the  apostles.  For  how  could  Papias,  the 
contemporary  of  Polycarp,  one  of  the  men  of  the  older  generation  to  the 
view  of  Irenffius,  have  been  formerly  (in  his  youth)  instructed  by  these 
disciples  of  the  apostles !  The  anachronism  resulting  from  this  explana- 
tion is  a  flagrant  one.  No  more,  on  the  other  hand,  can  these  elders  be, 
as  has  been  claimed,  simply  and  exclusively  the  apostles.  In  that  case 
Papias  would  have  used  this  term,  and  not  the  term  elders.  The  title 
elders  (npeopuTspoi,  seniores)  has,  with  the  Fathers,  as  Holtzmann  has  well 
remarked,  a  relative  meaning.  For  Irenseus  and  the  men  of  the  third 
Christian  generation,  the  elders  are  the  men  of  the  second,  the  Polycarps 
and  the  Papiases ;  for  these  latter,  they  are  the  men  of  the  first— the 
apostles,  first  of  all,  and,  besides  them,  every  immediate  witness  and  dis- 
ciple of  the  Lord.  This  clearly  appears  from  the  second  paragraph  in 
which  Papias  gives  an  enumeration  of  those  whom  he  calls  the  elders;  it 
includes  seven  apostles  and  two  diseiples  of  the  Lord  who  were  not  apostles, 
Aristioh  and  the  presbyter  John.  As  the  Apostle  John  has  been  named 
among  the  seven,  it  appears  to  me  impossible  to  identify  with  the  apostle 
this  presbyter  having  the  same  name,  notwithstanding  the  reasons  given 
by  Zahn  and  Kiggenbach.  He  is  a  second  John,  who  lived  in  Asia  Minor, 
and  whom  the  special  surname  of  elder  or  presbyter  was  intended,  per- 
haps, to  distinguish  from  the  apostle,  who  was  called  either  simply  John, 
or  the  Apostle  John.1 

And  is  It  not  evident  that;the  words  r,  r.t  irtpot  the  ellipsis  of  the  verb  is  inadmissible, 

are  the  conclusion  and,  as  it  were,  the  et  »  See  the  clear  and  precise  setting-forth  of 

tetera  of  the  preceding  enumeration  ?    More-  this  subject  by  Weiss  :  Commentar  zum  Evan- 

over,  of  what  consequence  is  it  which  of  the  gelium  Johannis  (6th  ed.  of  Meyer's  Commen- 

disciptoasaidsuchorauohathingl    Finally,  tary). 


IN  ASIA   MINOR.  45 

It  follows  from  this,  that,  in  the  first  paragraph,  Papias  declares  that  he 
had  in  former  years  heard  personally  from  the  immediate  disciples  of 
Jesus  (apostles  or  non-apostles).  He  does  not  name  them ;  but  we  have 
no  right  to  exclude  from  this  number  the  Apostle  John,  and,  because  of 
this  statement,  to  declare  false,  as  Eusebius  does  in  his  History,  the  words 
of  Irenseus :  "  Papias,  a  fellow-disciple  of  Polycarp  and  hearer  of  John." 
And  this  even  more,  since  Irenteus,  a  native  of  Asia  Minor,  had  probably 
been  personally  acquainted  with  Papias,  and  since  Eusebius  himself,  in 
his  Chronicon,  affirms  the  personal  connection  of  Papias,  as  well  as  that  of 
Polycarp,  with  St.  John.1 

In  the  second  paragraph,  Papias  passes  from  personal  to  indirect  rela- 
tions. He  explains  how,  at  a  later  period,  when  he  found  himself  pre- 
vented by  distance  or  by  the  death  of  the  elders  from  communicating 
with  them,  he  set  himself  to  the  work  of  continuing  to  collect  the  mate- 
rials for  his  book.  He  took  advantage  of  all  the  opportunities  that  were 
offered  him  by  the  visits  which  he  received  at  Hierapolis,  to  question 
every  one  of  those  who  had  anywhere  met  with  the  elders ;  and  it  is  on 
occasion  of  this  statement,  that  he  designates  the  latter  by  name  :  "  I  asked 
him  what  Andrew,  Peter  .  .  .  John,  etc.,  said  "  (when  they  were  alive)  re- 
specting such  or  such  a  circumstance  in  the  life  of  the  Lord,  "  and  what 
the  two  disciples  of  the  Lord,  Aristion  and  the  presbyter  John  say  "  (at  the 
present  time).  And  why,  indeed,  even  after  having  communicated  directly 
in  his  youth  with  some  of  these  men,  may  not  Papias  have  sought  to 
gather  some  indirect  information  from  the  lips  of  those  who  had  enjoyed 
such  intercourse  more  recently  or  more  abundantly  than  himself?  At  all 
events,  as  it  evidently  does  not  follow  from  the  first  paragraph  that  Papias 
"had  not  been  acquainted  with  John,  so  it  does  follow  with  equal  clearness, 
from  the  second,  that  he  was  not  personally  instructed  by  John  the  Pres- 
byter ;  and  thus  a  second  error  of  Eusebius  is  to  be  corrected. 

What  becomes,  then,  of  the  modern  argument  (Keim  and  others), 
drawn  from  the  passage  of  Papias,  against  the  residence  of  John  in  Asia  ? 
"  Papias  himself  declares,''  it  is  said,  "  that  he  was  not  acquainted  with 
any  one  of  the  apostles,  while  he  affirms  that  he  was  personally  acquainted 
with  John  the  Presbyter.  Irenseus,  therefore,  in  speaking  of  him  as  the 
hearer  of  the  Apostle  John,  has  confounded  the  apostle  with  the  pres- 
byter." The  fact  is :  1.  That  Papias  affirms  his  having  been  acquainted 
with  elders  (among  whom  might  be  John  the  Apostle)  ;  2.  That  he  denies  a 
personal  acquaintance  with  John  the  Presbyter  •  and  3.  That  he  expressly 
distinguishes  John  the  Apostle  from  John  the  Presbyter.  We  see  what  is 
the  value  of  the  objection  drawn  from  this  testimony. 

But,  it  is  said,  Irenseus  may  have  been  mistaken  when  alleging  that  the 
John  known  to  Polycarp  was  the  apostle,  whereas  this  person  was  actually 
only  the  presbyter.  And  this  mistake  of  Irenseus  may  have  led  astray 
the  whole  tradition  which  emanates  from  him.  Keim  supports  this  asser- 
tion by  the  following  expression  of  Irenseus  in  his  letter  to  Florinus,  when 

»  Oomp.  Zahn,  Patr.  apost.  edition  of  Gebhardt,  Ilarnack,  etc. 


46  BOOK   I.      THE   APOSTLE   JOHN. 

he  is  speaking  of  his  relations  with  Polycarp :  "  When  I  was  yet  a  child 
(naiq  in  uv),"  and  by  that  other  similar  expression,  in  his  great  work,  on 
the  same  occasion:  "In  our  first  youth  (kv  ry  irpuri)  yAinia)."  But  every 
one  acquainted  with  the  Greek  language  knows  well  that  such  expressions, 
in  particular  the  word  translated  by  child  (naig),  often  denote  a  young 
man ; '  and  could  the  youngest  Christian,  who  was  of  such  an  age  as  to 
hear  Polycarp,  in  listening  to  his  narratives,  confound  a  simple  presbyter 
with  the  Apostle  John?  Besides,  Polycarp  himself  came  to  Pome,  a 
short  time  before  his  martyrdom  ;  he  appealed  in  the  presence  of  Anicetus 
to  the  authority  of  the  Apostle  John,  in  order  to  support  the  Paschal 
observance  of  Asia  Minor.  The  misapprehension,  if  it  had  existed,  would 
infallibly,  at  that  time,  have  been  cleared  up.  Finally,  even  if  the  testi- 
mony of  Irenscus  had  been  founded  on  an  error,  it  could  not  have  had 
the  decisive  influence  on  the  tradition  which  is  ascribed  to  it.  For  there 
exist  other  statements  which  are  contemporaneous  with  his,  and  which 
are  necessarily  independent  of  it — such  as  those  of  Clement  in  Egypt  and 
Polycrates  in  Asia  Minor ;  or  even  anterior  to  his — such  as  those  of  Apol- 
lonius  in  Asia,  Polycarp  at  Rome,  and  Justin.  It  is  consequently  to 
attempt  an  impossibility,  when  we  try  to  make  the  whole  tradition  on  this 
point  proceed  from  Irenaeus.  Irenseus  wrote  in  Gaul  about  185;  how 
could  he  have  drawn  after  him  all  those  writers  or  witnesses  who  go  back 
in  a  continuous  series  from  190  to  150,  and  that  in  all  parts  of  the  world  !J 

Scholten  has  acknowledged  the  impossibility  of  explaining  the  error  in 
Keim's  way.3  He  thinks  that  it  arose  from  the  Apocalypse,  which  was 
attributed  to  the  Apostle  John,  and  which  appeared  to  have  been  composed 
in  Asia.* 

Mangold  himself  has  replied,  with  perfect  justice,  that  it  is,  on  the  con- 
trary, only  the  certainty  of  John's  residence  in  Asia  which  could  have 
brought  the  churches  of  that  region  to  ascribe  to  him  the  composition  of 
the  Apocalypse.5  If  Justin  himself,  while  he  resided  at  Ephesus,  where  he 
maintained  his  public  dispute  with  Trypho,  had  not  ascertained  the  cer- 
tainty of  John's  residence  in  that  country,  could  he  have  conceived  the 
idea  of  ascribing  to  him  so  positively  a  book,  the  first  chapters  of  which 
manifestly  imply  an  Asiatic  origin  ? 

Moreover,  this  tradition  was  so  widely  spread  abroad  throughout  the 
churches  of  Asia  Minor,  that*  Irenaeus  says  that  he  had  been  acquainted 

1  John  is  called  naU,  by  the  Fathers,  at  the  in  the  narrative  of  the  Acts,  and  who,  as  a 
time  when  he  becomes  a  disciple  of  Jesus.  consequence,  might  be  confounded  with  the 

2  Against  the  testimony  of  Polycrates  has  apostle,  and  a  man  as  obscure  as  the  presby- 
heen  alleged  the  error  contained  in  his  letter  ter  John. 

to  Victor,  as  to  the  deacon  Philip,  who,  he  says,  3  He  decides  in  favor  of  Steitz,  who  has 
was  one  of  the  Twelve.  Steitz's  hypothesis  proved  that  the  idea  of  John's  residence  in 
which  regards  the  words,  "  who  runs  one  of  the  Asia  existed  already  when  Apollonius  and  Ire- 
seven,"  as  interpolated  in  the  text  of  Acts  xxi.  nseus  wrote. 

«,  would  overthrow  the  objection.  But,  in  any  *Keim  does  not  altogether  reject  this  expla- 

case,  if  there  is  an  error  (which  cannot  be  nation.    He  says,  "  The  Apocalypse  came  in 

fully  proved)  there  remains  a  great  difference  also  as  a  help." 

between  an  apostolic  man,  such  as  the  evan-  5  Notes,  in  the  3d  edition  of  Bleek'a  Intro- 

gelist  Philip,  who  had  played  so  great  a  part  duction,  p.  168. 


IN  ASIA   MINOR.  47 

with  several  presbyters,  who,  by  reason  of  their  personal  relations  with  the 
Apostle  John,  testified  to  the  authenticity  of  the  number  666  (in  opposi- 
tion to  the  variant  616).  Finally,  how  can  we  dispose  of  the  testimony 
contained  in  the  letter  to  Florinus  ?  Scholten,  it  is  true,  has  attempted  to 
prove  this  document  to  be  unauthentic.  Hilgenfeld  calls  this  attempt  a 
desperate  undertaking.1  We  will  add :  and  a  useless  one,  even  in  case  it  is 
successful ;  for  the  letter  of  Irenseus  to  Victor,  which  no  one  tries  to 
dispute,  remains  and  is  sufficient.  Besides,  there  is  nothing  weaker  than 
the  arguments  by  which  Scholten  seeks  to  justify  this  act  of  critical 
violence.2  There  is  but  one  true  reason — that  which  arises  from  the 
admission :  If  the  letter  were  authentic,  the  personal  relation  of  Poly- 
carp  to  John  the  apostle  could  be  no  longer  denied.  Very  well !  we  may 
say,  the  authenticity  of  this  letter  remains  unassailable,  and,  by  the 
admission  of  Scholten  himself,  the  personal  relation  of  Poly  carp  to  John 
cannot  be  denied. 

But  it  is  claimed  that,  as  the  Apocalypse  presupposes  the  death  of  all 
the  apostles  as  an  accomplished  fact,  and  that  in  the  year  6S,S  the  Apostle 
John  could  not  have  been  still  living  about  the  year  100.  And  what,  then, 
are  the  words  of  the  Apocalypse  from  which  the  death  of  all  the  apostles 
is  inferred  ?  They  are  the  following,  according  to  the  text  which  is  now 
established  (xviii.  20) :  "Rejoice  thou  heaven  and  ye  saints  and  apostles 
and  prophets  (oi  ayioi  ml  ol  a-6a-oloi  ml  oi  izpo^rj-ai) ,  because  God  has  taken 
upon  the  earth  the  vengeance  which  was  due  to  you."  This  passage 
assuredly  proves  that,  at  the  date  of  the  composition  of  the  Apocalypse, 
there  were  in  heaven  a  certain  number  of  saints,  apostles  and  prophets, 
who  had  suffered  martyrdom.  But  these  apostles  are  as  far  from  being 
all  the  apostles  as  these  saints  are  from  being  all  the  saints  !  * 

Thus  the  objections  against  the  unanimously  authenticated  historical 
fact  of  the  residence  of  John  in  Asia,5  to  which  critical  prejudices  have 
given  rise,  vanish  away. 

Tradition  does  not  merely  attest  John's  residence  in  Asia  in  a  general 
way;  it  reports,  in  addition,  many  particular  incidents  which  may  indeed 

1  Einleitung,  p.  397.  more  distinctly  observed.    Hilgenfeld,  Baur's 

2  Thus  he  asks  how  Eusebius  procured  disciple,  and  Baur  himself  have  need  of  John's 
that  letter ;  how  the  relation  of  Polycarp  with  residence  in  Asia,  for  H  is  the  foundation  of 
John  is  compatible  with  his  death  in  108  (we  their  argument  against  the  authenticity  of  our 
ought  to  say  150) ;  why  Irenseus  does  not  re-  Gospel,  which  is  derived  from  the  Apocalypse 
call  to  Florinus  his  rank  of  presbyter  of  the  and  the  Paschal  controversy.  What  happens? 
Roman  Church;  and  other  arguments  of  like  They  find  the  testimonies  which  attest  this 
force.  fact  perfectly  convincing.    Keim,  on  the  con- 

8  We  do  not  here  discuss  this  alleged  date  trary,  for  whom  that  residence  is  a  very  trou- 

of  the  Apocalypse;  we  believe  that  we  have  blesome  fact  (because  the  remote  date  which 

elsewhere  demonstrated  its  falsity.    (Etudes  he  assigns  for  the  composition  of  our  Gospel 

biblique,  tome  ii.  5«  etude.)  would  be  too  near  the  time  of  that  residence), 

*  On  the  objection  derived  from  the  account  declares  these  same  testimonies  valueless. 

of  the  murder  of  John  by  the  Jews,  in  the  What  are  we  to  think,  after  this,  of  the  so 

Chronicle  of  Georgius  Hamart61os,  see  page  much  vaunted  objectivity  of  historico-critical 

51.  studies?  Itisplain: — each  critical  judgment 

6  In  no  question,  perhaps,  is  the  decisive  is  determined  by  a  sympathy  or  an  antipathy 

influence  of  the  will  on  the  estimate  of  facta  which  warps  the  understanding. 


48 


BOOK   I.      THE   APOSTLE   JOHN. 


have  been  amplified,  but  which  cannot  have  been  wholly  invented.  In 
any  case,  these  anecdotes  imply  a  well-established  conviction  of  the  reality 
of  this  residence. 

There  is,  for  example,  the  meeting  of  John  with  the  heretic  Cerinthus 
in  a  public  bath,  at  Ephesus.  "  There  are  still  living,"  says  Irenaeus  (Adv. 
Haer.  iii.  4),  "people  who  have  heard  Polycarp  relate  that  John,  having 
entered  a  bath-house  at  Ephesus  and  having  seen  Cerinthus  inside,  sud- 
denly withdrew,  without  having  bathed,  saying :  Let  us  go  but,  lest  the 
house  fall  down  because  Cerinthus,  the  enemy  of  the  truth,  is  there."  This 
well  attested  incident  recalls  the  vividness  of  impressions  in  the  young 
apostle,  who  refused  the  right  of  healing  in  the  name  of  Jesus  to  the  be- 
liever who  did  not  outwardly  walk  with  the  apostles,  or  who  desired  to 
bring  down  fire  from  heaven  on  the  Samaritan  village  which  was  hostile 
to  Jesus.  Or,  again,  there  is  the  incident,  related  by  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
of  the  young  man  who  was  entrusted  by  John  to  a  bishop  of  Asia  Minor, 
and  whom  the  aged  apostle  succeeded  in  bringing  back  from  the  criminal 
course  upon  which  he  had  entered.1    This  incident  recalls  the  ardor  of 


. 


1  The  following  is  the  incident  loaded  with 
the  rhetorical  amplifications  of  Clement,  as 
it  is  found  in  Quis  dives  salvus,  c.  42: 

"Listen  to  that  which  is  related  (and  it  is 
not  a  tale,  hut  a  true  history)  of  the  Apostle 
John:  When  he  was  on  his  return  from  Pat- 
mos  to  Ephesus,  after  the  death  of  the  tyrant, 
he  visited  the  surrounding  countries  for  the 
purpose  of  establishing  bishops  and  consti- 
tuting churches.  One  day,  in  a  city  near  to 
Ephesus,  after  having  exhorted  the  brethren 
and  regulated  the  affairs,  he  noticed  a  spirited 
and  beautiful  young  man,  and,  feeling  him- 
self immediately  attracted  to  him,  he  said  to 
the  bishop :  '  I  place  him  on  thy  heart  and 
on  that  of  the  Church.'  The  bishop  promised 
the  apostle  to  take  care  of  him.  He  received 
him  into  his  house,  instructed  him  and  watch- 
ed over  him  until  he  could  admit  him  to  bap- 
tism. But,  after  he  had  received  the  seal  of 
the  Lord,  the  bishop  relaxed  in  his  watchful- 
ness. -The  young  man,  set  free  too  sqon,  fre- 
quented bad  society,  gave  himself  up  to  all 
sorts  of  excess,  and  ended  by  stopping  and 
robbing  passengers  on  the  nighway.  As  a 
mettlesome  horse,  when  he  has  once  left  the 
road,  dashes  blindly  down  the  precipice,  so 
he,  borne  on  by  his  natural  character,  plunged 
into  the  abyss  of  perdition.  Despairing  hence- 
forth of  forgiveness,  he  yet  desired  at  least  to 
do  something  great  in  this  criminal  life.  He 
gathers  together  his  companions  in  debauch- 
ery and  forms  them  into  a  band  of  brigands, 
of  whom  he  becomes  the  chief,  and  soon  he 
surpasses  them  al4  in  the  thirst  for  blood  and 
violence. 

"After  a  certain  lapse  [of  time,  John  re- 


turned to  this  same  city ;  having  finished  all 
that  he  had  to  do  there,  he  asks  the  bishop, 
'  Well,  restore  now  the  pledge  which  the  Lord 
and  I  have  entrusted  to  thee  in  the  presence 
of  the  Church.'  The  latter,  dismayed,  thinks 
that  it  is  a  matter  of  a  sum  of  money  which 
had  been  entrusted  to  him :  '  Not  at  all,' 
answers  John, '  but  the  young  man,  the  soul 
of  thy  brother!'  The  old  man  sighs,  and 
bursting  into  tears,  answers :  '  He  is  dead ! ' — 
'Dead  ! '  replies  the  Lord's  disciple  ;  '  and  by 
what  sort  of  death  ? '  '  Dead  to  God !  He  be- 
came ungodly  and  then  a  robber.  He  occu- 
pies, with  his  companions,  the  summit  of  this 
mountain.'  On  hearing  these  words,  the  apos- 
tle rends  his  garments,  smites  his  head  and 
cries  out:  'Oh,  to  what  a  guardian  have  I 
entrusted  the  soul  of  my  brother! '  He  takes 
a  horse  and  a  guide,  and  goes  directly  to  the 
place  where  the  robbers  are.  He  is  seized  by 
the  sentinels,  and,  far  from  seeking  to  escape, 
he  says  :  '  It  is  for  this  very  thing  that  I  am 
come;  conduct  me  to  your  chief.'  The  latter, 
fully  armed,  awaits  his  arrival.  But  as  soon 
as  he  recognizes  in  the  one  who  is  approach- 
ing the  Apostle  John,  he  takes  to  flight.  John, 
forgetting  his  age,  runs  after  him,  crying : 
'  Why  dost  thou  fly  from  me,  oh  my  son,  from 
me  thy  father?  Thou  in  arms,  I  an  unarmed 
old  man?  Have  pity  on  me!  My  son,  fear 
not!  There  is  still  hope  of  life  for  thee!  I 
am  willing  myself  to  assume  the  burden  of 
all  before  Christ.  If  it  is  necessary,  I  will  die 
for  thee,  as  Christ  died  for  us.  Stop !  Believe ! 
It  is  Christ  who  sends  me ! '  The  young  man, 
on  hearing  his  words,  stops,  with  downcast 
eyes.    Thon  he  throws  away  his  arms,  and 


IN  ASIA   MINOR.  49 

love  in  the  young  disciple  who,  at  the  first  meeting  with  Jesus  had  given 
himself  up  wholly  to  Him,  and  whom  Jesus  had  made  His  friend. 

Clement  says  that  the  apostle  returned  from  Patmos  to  Ephcsus  after 
the  death  of  the  tyrant.  Tertullian  {De  praeseript.  haer.  c.  36)  relates  that 
that  exile  was  preceded  by  a  journey  to  Rome  ;  and  he  adds  the  following 
detail :  "  After  the  apostle  had  been  plunged  in  boiling  oil  and  had  come 
out  of  it  safe  and  sound,  he  was  banished  to  an  island."  According  to 
Irenseus  it  would  seem  that  the  tyrant  was  Domitian.1  Some  scholars 
claim  that  a  reminder  of  this  punishment  undergone  by  John  may  bo 
found  in  the  epithet  witness  (or  martyr)  which  is  given  him  by  Polycrates. 
But  perhaps  there  is  in  that  narrative  simply  a  fiction,  to  which  the  words 
addressed  by  Jesus  to  the  two  sons  of  Zebedee  may  have  given  rise  :  "  Ye 
shall  be  baptized  with  the  baptism  that  I  am  baptized  with,"  words  the 
literal  realization  of  which  is  sought  for  in  vain  in  the  life  of  John.  As 
to  the  exile  in  Patmos,  it  might  also  be  supposed  that  that  story  is  merely 
an  inference  drawn  from  Apoc.  i.  Nevertheless,  Eusebius  says :  "  Tradition 
states  (16yoq  ixEL) ',  "  arjd  as  history  proves  the  fact  of  exiles  of  this  sort 
under  Domitian,  and  that  precisely  for  the  crime  of  the  Christian  faith,2 
there  may  well  be  more  in  it  than  the  product  of  an  exegetical  combina- 
tion. This  exile  and  the  composition  of  the  Apocalypse  are  placed  by 
Epiphanius  in  the  reign  of  Claudius  (from  the  year  41  to  the  year  54).  This 
date  is  positively  absurd,  since  at  that  epoch  the  churches  of  Asia  Minor, 
to  which  the  Apocalypse  is  addressed,  had  no  existence.  Kenan  has 
supposed 3  that  the  legend  of  the  martyrdom  of  John  might  have  arisen 
from  the  fact  that  this  apostle  had  had  to  undergo  a  sentence  at  Rome  at 
the  same  time  as  Peter  and  Paul.  But  this  hypothesis  is  not  sufficiently 
supported.  Finally,  according  to  Augustine,  he  drank  a  cup  of  poison 
without  feeling  any  injury  from  it,  and  according  to  the  anti-Montanist 
writer,  Apollonius,  (about  180),  John  raised  to  life  a  dead  man  at  Ephesus 
(Eusebius,  v.  18) ;  two  legends,  which  are  perhaps  connected  with  Matt.  x. 
8  and  Mark  xvi.  18.  Steitz  has  supposed  that  the  latter  was  only  an  alter- 
ation of  the  history  of  the  young  brigand  rescued  by  John  from  perdition. 

Clement  of  Alexandria  thus  describes  the  ministry  of  edification  and 
organization  which  the  apostle  exercised  in  Asia:  "He  visited  the 
churches,  instituted  bishops  and  regulated  affairs."  Rothe,  Thiersch  and 
Neander  himself*  attribute  to  the  influence  exerted  by  him  the  very 
stable  constitution  of  the  churches  of  Asia  Minor  in  the  second  century, 


begins  to  tremble  and  weep  bitterly.    And  so  earnestly  and  powerfully,  by  fasting  and 
when  the  old  man  comes  up,  he  embraces  his  by  his  discoursing,  that  he  is  at  length  able  to 
knees  and  asks  him  for  pardon  with  deep  restore  him  to  the  flock  as  an  example  of 
groanings;  these  tears  arc  for  him  as  if  a  true  regeneration." 
second  baptism;   only  he  refuses  and  still  '  For  in  Adv.  Ilacr.  v.  33,  he  places  the  corn- 
conceals  his  right  hand.    The  apostle  hcoom-  position  of  the  Apocalypse  under  Domitian. 
ing  himself  surety  for  him  before  tho  Sa-           2  Eusebius,  II.  E.  iii.  18. 
viour,  with  an  oath  promises  him  his  pardon,  *  V  Antiehriit,  p.  27  ff. 
falls  on  his  knees,  prays,  and  finally,  taking  *Gr.srhkhte   dcr    Pflanzung  dcr  christlichen 
him  by  the  hand,  which  he  withdraws,  leads  Kirclie,  Vol.  II.,  p.  430. 
him  back  to  the  Church,  and  there  strives 
4 


50  BOOK   I.      THE  APOSTLE  JOHN. 

of  which  we  already  find  traces  in  the  Apocalypse  {the  angel  of  the 
Church),  and,  a  little  later,  in  the  epistles  of  Ignatius.  History  thus 
establishes  the  fact  of  a  visit  to  these  churches  made  by  an  eminent  apos- 
tle, such  as  St.  John  was,  who  crowned  the  edifice  erected  by  Paul.  But 
the  most  beautiful  monument  of  the  visit  of  John  in  these  regions  is  the 
maturity  of  faith  and  Christian  life  to  which  the  churches  of  Asia  were 
raised  by  his  ministry.  Polycrates,  in  his  enthusiastic  and  symbolic  lan- 
guage, represents  to  us  St.  "John  at  this  period  of  his  life,  as  wearing  on 
his  forehead,  like  the  Jewish  high-priest,  the  plate  of  gold  with  the 
inscription,  Holiness  to  the  Lord.  "  John,"  he  says,  "  who  rested  on  the 
bosom  of  the  Lord,  and  who  became  a  priest  wearing  the  plate  of  gold, 
both  witness  and  teacher."  The  attempt  has  been  made  to  find  in  this 
passage  an  absurdity,  by  taking  it  in  the  literal  sense ;  but  the  thought  of 
the  aged  bishop  is  clear :  John,  the  last  survivor  of  the  apostolate,  had 
left  in  the  Church  of  Asia  the  impression  of  a  pontiff  Avhose  forehead  was 
irradiated  by  the  splendor  of  the  holiness  of  Christ.  It  is  not  impossible 
that,  in  these  three  titles  which  he  gives  him,  Polycrates  alludes  to  the 
three  principal  books  which  were  attributed  to  him  :  in  that  of  priest 
wearing  the  sacerdotal  frontlet,  to  the  Apocalypse ;  in  that  of  witness,  to 
the  Gospel;   in  that  of  teacher,  to  the  Epistle. 

The  hour  for  work  had  struck  in  the  first  place  for  Simon  Peter  ;  he  had 
founded  the  Church  in  Israel  and  planted  the  standard  of  the  new  cove- 
nant on  the  ruins  of  the  theocracy.  Paul  had  followed :  his  work  had 
been  to  liberate  the  Church  from  the  restrictions  of  expiring  Judaism  and 
to  open  to  the  Gentiles  the  door  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  John  succeeded 
them,  he  who  had  first  come  to  Jesus,  and  whom  his  Master  reserved  for 
the  last.  He  consummated  the  fusion  of  those  heterogeneous  elements 
of  which  the  Church  had  been  formed,  and  raised  Christianity  to  the 
relative  perfection  of  which  it  was,  at  that  time,  susceptible. 

According  to  all  the  traditions,1  John  had  never  any  other  spouse  than 
the  Church  of  the  Lord,  nor  any  other  family  than  that  which  he  salutes 
by  the  name  of  "  my  children  "  in  his  epistles.  Hence  the  epithet  virgi- 
nal (!>  TvapQhwq),  by  which  he  is  sometimes  designated  (Epiphanius  and 
Augustine). 

We  find  in  John  Cassian  an  anecdote  which  well  describes  the  memory 
which  he  had  left  behind  him  in  Asia.2 


'  Tertnllian,   Dc  Monngamin,  e.  17  ;  Ambro-  said  the  young  man.    Why  is  it  not  bent  as 

piaster  on  2  Cor.  xi.  2  :  "  All  the  apostles,  ex-  usual?    In  order  not  to  take  away  from  it,  by 

cept  John  and  Paul,  wore  married."  bending  it  too  constantly,  the.  elasticity  which 

2  We  transcribe  it  here  from  Hilgenfeld's  it  should  possess  at  the  moment'when  I  shall 

Jntroihiction  p.  405  :   "  It  is  reported  that  the  shoot  the  arrow.     Do  not  be  shocked  then, 

blessed    Evangelist   John    one   day   gently  young  man,  at  this  short   relief  which  we 

caressed  a  partridge,  and  that  a  young  man  give  to  our  mind,  which  otherwise,  losing  its 
returning  from  the  ehasp,on  seeing  him  thus 
engaged, asked  him,  with  astonishment,  how 


give  to  our  mind,  wmen  otnerwise,  losing  its 
spring,  could  not  aid  us  when  necessity  de-  I 
mands  it.    This  incident  is,  in  any  case,  a  I 


BO  illustrious  a  man  eould  give  himself  up  to  testimony  to  the  calm  and  serene  impression 
so  trivial  an  occupation?  What  dost  thou  which  the  qld  age  of  John  had  left  in  the 
carry  in  thy  hand?  answered  John.    A  bow,       Church." 


HIS   DEATH.  51 

V. 

THE  DEATH  OF  ST.  JOHN. 

All  the  statements  of  the  Fathers  relative  to  the  end  of  John's  career, 
agree  on  this  point,  that  his  life  was  prolonged  even  to  the  limits  of  ex- 
treme old  age.  Jerome  (Ep.  to  the  Gal.  vi.  10)  relates  that,  having  attained 
a  very  great  age,  and  being  too  feeble  to  be  able  any  longer  to  repair  to  the 
assemblies  of  the  Church,  he  had  himself  carried  thither  by  the  young 
men,  and  that,  having  no  longer  strength  to  speak  much,  he  contented/ 
himself  with  saying  :  "  My  little  children,  love  one  another."  And  when' 
he  was  asked  why  he  repeated  always  that  single  word,  his  reply  was : 
"  Because  it  is  the  Lord's  commandment,  and,  if  this  is  done,  enough  is 
done."  According  to  the  same  Jerome,  he  died,  weighed  down  by  old 
age,  sixty-eight  years  after  the  Lord's  Passion — that  is  to  say,  about  the 
year  100.  Irenseus  says  "  that  he  lived  until  the  time  of  Trajan  :"  that  is, 
until  after  the  year  98.  According  to  Suidas,  he  even  attained  the  age  of 
one  hundred  and  twenty  years.  The  letter  of  Polycrates  proves  that  he 
was  buried  at  Ephesus  (ovrog  iv  'E^to-u  KEKolfi^rai).  There  were  shown  also 
in  that  city  two  tombs,  each  of  which  was  said  to  be  that  of  the  apostle, 
(Eusebius,  H.  E.  vii.  25 ;  Jerome,  de  vir.  ill,  c.  9),  and  it  is  by  means  of 
this  fact  that  Eusebius  tries  to  establish  the  hypothesis  of  a  second  John, 
called  the  presbyter,  a  contemporary  of  the  apostle.  The  idea  had  also 
been  conceived,  that  John  would  be  exempt  from  the  necessity  of  paying 
the  common  tribute  to  death.  The  words  that  Jesus  had  addressed  to 
him  (John  xxi.  22)  were  quoted :  "  If  I  will  that  he  tarry  till  I  come,  what 
is  it  to  thee?  "  And  we  learn  from  St.  Augustine  that  even  his  death  did 
not  cause  this  strange  idea  to  pass  away.  In  the  treatise  124,  on  the  Gos- 
pel of  John,  he  relates  that,  according  to  some,  the  apostle  was  still  living 
— peacefully  sleeping  in  his  grave,  the  proof  of  -which  was  furnished  by 
the  fact  that  the  earth  was  gently  moved  by  his  breathing.  Isidore  of 
Seville '  relates  that,  when  he  felt  that  the  day  of  his  departure  was  come, 
John  caused  his  grave  to  be  dug;  and,  bidding  his  brethren  farewell,  he  laid 
himself  down  in  it  as  if  in  a  bed — which,  he  says,  leads  some  to  allege 
that  he  is  still  alive.  Some  have  gone  even  further  than  this,  and  alleged 
that  he  was  taken  up  to  heaven,  as  Enoch  and  Elijah  were.2 

A  more  important  fact  would  be  that  which  is  related  in  a  fragment  of 
the  chronicle  by  Georgius  Hamartolos  (ninth  century),  published  by  Nolte.3 
"After  Domitian,  Nerva  reigned  during  one  year,  who,  having  recalled 
John  from  the  island,  permitted  him  to  dwell  at  Ephesus  (airklvaev  o'utelv 
iv  'E0e<T(j).  Being  left  as  the  sole  survivor  among  the  twelve  disciples,  after 
having  composed  his  Gospel,  he  was  judged  worthy  of  martyrdom;  for 
Papias,  bishop  of  Hierapolis,  who  was  a  witness  of  the  fact  {avrdnrriq  -ovtov 
yevdjievog),  relates  in  the  second  book  of  the  Discourses  of  the  Lord  that  he 
was  killed  by  the  Jews  (b-c  v-ab  'lovdaiuv  airqp&hj),  thus  fulfilling,  like  his 

I1  Deortu  et  obitu  patrum,1\.  hanms  in  the  collection  of  Apocryphal  Acts, 

a  Hilgenfeld  cites  as  proof  pseudo-Hippo-       published  by  Teschendorf,  1851. 
lytus,  Ephrem  of  Antioch  and  the  Acta  Jo-  3  Thcol.  Quartalschrift,  18G2. 


52  BOOK   I.      THE  APOSTLE  JOHN. 

brother,  the  word  which  Christ  had  spoken  respecting  him:  Ye  shall 
drink  the  cup  which  I  must  drink.  And  the  learned  Origen,  also,  in  his 
exposition  of  Matthew,  affirms  that  John  thus  underwent  martyrdom." 

Keim  and  Holtzmann,  at  once  regarding  this  event  as  established  by 
evidence,  and  locating  it  without  hesitation  in  Palestine  because  there  is 
a  reference  to  the  Jews,  have  drawn  from  it  an  unanswerable  proof  as  oppos- 
ing John's  residence  in  Asia  Minor.1  This  proceeding  proves  only  one 
thing:  the  credulity  of  science  when  the  matter  in  hand  is  to  prove  what 
it  desires.  And,  first  of  all,  were  there  not  then  in  Ephesus  also  Jews 
capable  of  killing  the  apostle?2  Then,  does  not  the  fragment  itself  place 
the  scene  in  Asia :  "  Nerva  permitted  John  to  return  to  Ephesus."  Still 
further,  it  is  as  having  been  a  witness  of  the  scene  that  Papias  is  said  to 
have  related  it.  Did  Papias,  then,  live  in  Palestine  ?  Finally,  supposing 
that  this  account  were  displeasing  to  the  critics  and  contradicted  their 
system,  they  would  certainly  ask  how  it  is  possible,  if  the  work  of  Papias 
really  contained  that  passage,  that  none  of  the  Fathers  who  had  his  book 
in  their  hands,  should  have  been  acquainted  with  this  alleged  martyrdom 
of  John,  or  have  made  mention  of  it?  They  would  tell  us  that  the  quo- 
tation which  Hamartolos  makes  from  Origen  is  false,  since  that  Father 
relates,  indeed,  the  banishment  to  Patmos,  but  nothing  more;  etc.,  etc. 
And,  in  that  case,  their  criticism  would  undoubtedly  be  well  founded.  All 
unprejudiced  scholars  have,  in  fact,  admitted  that  the  chronicler  had  a 
false  Papias,  or  an  interpolated  Papias,  in  his  hands.  But  in  any  case,  if 
we  accept  this  point  in  the  account :  killed  by  the  Jeivs,  it  is  only  logical  to 
see  in  the  testimony  given  to  this  fact  by  Papias  as  an  eye-witness,  a  sure 
proof  of  the  personal  relation  which  had  existed  between  Papias  and  the 
apostle  in  Asia  Minor.  And  yet  Keim  and  Holtzmann  find  the  means  of 
seeing  in  it  quite  the  opposite ! 

We  conclude :  If,  as  may  be  supposed,  John  was  twenty  to  twenty-five 
years  old,  when  he  was  called  by  Jesus  about  the  year  30,  he  was  from 
ninety  to  ninety-five  about  the  year  100,  three  years  after  the  accession  of 
Trajan.  There  is  nothing  improbable  in  this.  Consequently,  he  might 
have  been  in  personal  relations  with  the  Polycarps  and  Papiases,  born 
about  the  year  70,  and  with  many  other  still  younger  presbyters  who,  as 
Irenauis  says,  saw  him  face  to  face  while  he  was  living  in  Asia  until  the 
time  of  Trajan. 

VI. 

THE  CHARACTER  OF  JOHN. 

Ardor  of  affection,  vividness  of  intuition, — such  seem  to  have  been, 
from  the  point  of  view  of  feeling  and  that  of  intelligence,  the  two 
dominant  traits  in  John's  nature.     These  two  tendencies  must  have 

1  Keim,  Qeechichte  Jem,  M  ed.,  Vol.  I.,  p.  42.  with  a  shower  of  stones  from  the  hands  of 
"A  testimony,  newly-discovered,  whichputsan  Jewish  children  when  passing  through  the 
end  to  all  illusions."  Jewish  quarter,  know  something  of  the  fa- 

2  Those  who  have  visited  the  tomb  of  Poly-  naticism  of  the  Jews  of  Asia  even  at  the 
carp  at  Smyrna,  and  who  have  been  received  present  time.    What  was  it  then! 


HIS   CHARACTER.  53 

powerfully  co-operated  in  bringing  .about  the  very  close  personal  union 
which  was  formed  between  the  disciple  and  his  Master.  While  loving, 
John  contemplated,  and  the  more  he  contemplated,  the  more  he  loved. 
He  was  absorbed  with  this  intuition  of  love  and  he  drew  from  it.  his  inner 
life.  So  he  does  not,  like  St.  Paul,  analyze  faith  and  its  object.  "John 
does  not  discuss,"  says  de  Pressense,  "  he  affirms."  It  is  enough  for  him 
to  state  the  truth,  in  order  that  whoever  loves  it  may  receive  it,  as  he  has 
himself  received  it,  by  way  of  immediate  intuition,  rather  than  of  rea- 
soning. We  may  apply  to  the  Apostle  John,  in  the  highest  degree,  what 
Penan  has  said  of  the  Semite  :  "  He  proceeds  by  intuition,  not  by  deduc- 
tion." At  one  bound,  the  heart  of  John  reached  the  radiant  height  on 
which  faith  has  its  throne.  Already  he  feels  himself  in  absolute  possession 
of  the  victory :  "  He  who  is  born  of  God  sinneth  not."  The  ideal  apper- 
tains to  him,  realized  in  Him  whom  he  loves  and  in  whom  he  believes. 

Peter  was  distinguished  by  his  practical  originating  power,  scarcely  com- 
patible with  tender  receptivity.  Paul  united  to  active  energy  and  the 
most  consummate  practical  ability  the  penetrating  vigor  of  an  unequalled 
dialectic.  For,  although  a  Semite,  he  had  passed  his  earliest  years  in  one 
of  the  most  brilliant  centres  of  Hellenic  culture  and  had  there  appropri- 
ated the  acute  forms  of  the  occidental  mind.  John  is  completely  differ- 
ent from  both.  He  could  not  have  laid  the  foundations  of  the  Christian 
work,  like  Peter  ;  he  could  not  have  contended,  like  Paul,  with  dialectic 
subtlety  against  Jewish  Rabbinism,  and  composed  the  Epistles  to  the  Gala- 
tians  and  the  Romans.  But,  in  the  closing  period  of  the  apostolic  age,  it 
was  he  who  was  charged  with  putting  the  completing  work  upon  the 
development  of  the  primitive  Church,  which  St.  Peter  had  founded  and 
St.  Paul  had  emancipated.  He  has  bequeathed  to  the  world  three  works, 
in  which  he  has  exalted  to  their  sublime  perfection  those  three  supreme 
intuitions  in  the  Christian  life  : — that  of  the  person  of  Christ,  in  the  Gos- 
pel ;  that  of  the  individual  believer,  in  the  first  Epistle ;  and  that  of  the 
Church,  in  the  Apocalypse.  Under  three  aspects,  the  same  theme  : — the 
divine  life  realized  in  man,  eternity  filling  time.  One  of  John's  own  ex- 
pressions sums  up  and  binds  together  these  three  works : — eternal  life  abid- 
ing in  us.  That  life  appears  in  the  state  of  full  realization  in  the  first,  of 
progress  and  struggle  in  the  two  others.  John,  through  his  writings  and 
his  person,  is,  as  it  were,  the  earthly  anticipation  of  the  divine  festival. 


BOOK  SECOND. 

ANALYSIS  AND   CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE 
FOURTH   GOSPEL. 


Biedermann,  in  his  Christian  Dogmatics  (p.  254),  calls  the  fourth  Gospel 
"  the  most  wonderful  of  all  religious  books."  And  he  adds :  "  From  one 
end  to  the  other  of  this  work,  the  most  profound  religious  truth  and  the 
most  fantastic  monstrosity  meet  not  only  with  one  another,  but  in  one 
another."  Neither  this  admiration  nor  this  disdain  can  surprise  us.  For 
the  Johannean  conception  possesses  in  the  highest  degree  these  two  traits, 
one  of  which  repels  pantheism  and  the  other  attracts  it :  the  transcend- 
ency of  the  divine  personality  and  the  immanence  of  the  perfect  life  in 
the  finite  being. 


CHAPTER  FIRST. 

ANALYSIS. 


We  do  not  intend  to  discuss  here  the  different  plans  of  the  Johannean 
narrative  proposed  by  the  commentators.1  We  shall  only  indicate  the 
course  of  the  narrative  as  it  becomes  clear  from  an  attentive  study  of  the 
book  itself. 

I.  The  narrative  is  preceded  by  a  preamble  which,  as  interpreters  almost 
unanimously  acknowledge,2  includes  the  first  eighteen  verses  of  the  first 
chapter.  In  this  introduction,  the  author  sets  forth  the  sublime  grandeur 
and  vital  importance  of  the  subject  which  he  is  about  to  treat.  This  sub- 
ject is  nothing  less,  indeed,  than  the  appearance  in  Jesus  of  the  perfect 
revealer, — the  communication  in  His  person  of  the  life  of  God  Himself  to 
humanity.  To  reject  this  word  made  flesh  will  thus  be  the  supreme  sin 
and  misfortune,  as  is  shown  by  the  example  of  the  rebellious  Jews  ;  to  re- 
ceive Him  will  be  to  know  and  possess  God,  as  already  the  experience  of 
all  believers,  Jews  and  Gentiles,  proves.  The  three  aspects  of  the  evan- 
gelical fact  are,  consequently,  brought  out  in  this  prologue  :  1.  The  Word 
as  agent  of  the  divine  work  ;   2.  The  rejection  of  the  Word,  by  the  act  of 

1  See  at  the  beginning  of  the  commentary.  *  Reuss  forms  an  exception ;  see  at  i.  1. 

54 


ANALYSIS.  55 

unbelief;  3.  The  rceeption  given  to  the  Word  by  the  act  of  faith.  The  first 
of  these  three  ideas  is  the  dominant  one  in  vv.  1-5 ;  the  second  in  vv.  G-ll ; 
the  third  in  vv.  12-18. 

But  we  must  not  regard  these  three  aspects  of  the  narrative  which  is 
to  follow  as  being  of  equal  importance.  The  primordial  and  fundamental 
fact  in  this  history,  is  the  appearance  and  manifestation  of  the  Word.  On 
this  permanent  foundation  the  two  secondary  facts  are  presented  to  view 
alternately — unbelief  and  faith — the  progressive  manifestations  of  which 
determine  the  phases  of  the  narrative. 

II.  The  narrative  opens  with  the  story  of  the  three  days,  i.  19-42,  in 
which  the  work  of  the  Son  of  God  began  on  the  earth  and  in  the  heart  of 
the  evangelist,  if  it  is  true,  as  the  greater  part  of  the  interpreters  admit, 
that  the  anonymous  companion  of  Andrew,  vv.  35  ff.,  is  no  other  than 
the  author  himself. 

On  the  first  day,  John  the  Baptist  proclaims  before  an  official  deputation 
of  the  Sanhedrim  the  startling  fact  of  the  actual  presence  of  the  Messiah  in 
the  midst  of  the  people  :  "  There  is  in  the  midst  of  you  one  whom  you  know 
not "  (ver.  26).  The  day  following,  he  points  out  Jesus  personally  to 
two  of  his  disciples  as  the  one  of  whom  he  had  meant  to  speak ;  the 
third  day,  he  lays  such  emphasis  in  speaking  to  them  upon  that  declara- 
tion of  the  day  before  that  the  two  disciples  determine  to  follow  Jesus. 
This  day  becomes  at  the  same  time  the  birthday  of  faith.  Both  recog- 
nize the  Messianic  dignity  of  Jesus.  Then  Andrew  brings  Simon,  his 
brother,  to  Jesus ;  a  slight  indication,  i.  42  (see  the  exegesis),  seems  to  show 
that  the  other  disciple  likewise  brings  his  own  brother  (James,  the 
brother  of  John).    The  first  nucleus  of  the  society  of  believers  is  formed. 

Three  days  follow  (i.  43— ii.  11) ;  the  first  two  have  as  their  result  the 
adding  of  two  new  believers,  Philip  and  Nathanael,  to  the  three  or  four 
preceding  ones ;  the  third  day,  that  of  the  marriage-feast  at  Cana,  serves 
to  strengthen  the  nascent  faith  of  all.  Thus  faith,  born  of  the  testimony 
of  the  forerunner  and  of  the  contact  of  the  first  disciples  with  Jesus  Him- 
self, is  extended  and  confirmed  by  the  increasing  spectacle  of  His  glory 
(ii.  11). 

Jesus,  on  His  return  to  Galilee  and  still  surrounded  by  His  family, 
abandons  Nazareth  and  comes  to  take  up  His  abode  at  Capernaum,  a  city 
much  more  fitted  to  become  the  centre  of  his  work  (ii.  12). 

But  the  Passover  feast  draws  near.  The  moment  has  come  for  Jesus  to 
begin  the  Messianic  work  in  the  theocratic  capital,  at  Jerusalem,  ii.  13- 
22.  From  this  moment,  He  calls  His  disciples  to  accompany  Him  con- 
stantly (ver.  17).  The  purification  of  the  temple  is  a  significant  appeal  to 
every  Israelitish  conscience ;  the  people  and  their  rulers  are  invited  by 
this  bold  act  to  co-operate,  all  of  them  together,  for  the  spiritual  elevation 
of  the  theocracy,  under  the  direction  of  Jesus.  If  the  people  yielded 
themselves  to  this  impulse,  all  was  gained.  Instead  of  this,  they  remain 
cold.  This  is  the  sign  of  a  secret  hostility.  The  future  victory  of  unbelief 
is,  as  it  were,  decided  in  principle.  Jesus  discerns  and  by  a  profound 
saying  reveals  the  gravity  of  this  moment  (ver.  19). 


56  BOOK   II.      THE   GOSPEL. 

Some  symptoms  of  faith,  nevertheless,  show  themselves  in  the  face  of 
this  rising  opposition  (ii.  23-iii.  21) ;  but  a  carnal  alloy  disturbs  this  good 
mi  ivement.  It  is  as  a  worker  of  miracles  that  Jesus  attracts  attention.  A 
remarkable  example  of  this  faith  which  is  not  faith  is  presented  in  the 
person  of  Nicodemus,  a  Pharisee,  a  member  of  the  Sanhedrim.  Like 
several  i  if  his  colleagues,  and  many  other  believers  in  the  capital,  he  recog- 
nizes as  belonging  to  Jesus  a  divine  mission,  attested  by  His  miraculous 
works  (hi.  2).  Jesus  endeavors  to  give  him  a  purer  understanding  of  the 
person  and  work  of  the  Messiah  than  that  which  he  had  derived  from 
Pharisaic  teaching,  and  dismisses  him  with  this  farewell  which  was  full 
of  encouragement  (ver.  21) :  "  He  that  doeth  the  truth  cometh  to  the 
light."  The  sequel  of  the  Gospel  will  show  the  fulfillment  of  this  promise; 
comp.  vii.  50  ff. ;  xix.  39  ff. 

These  few  traces  of  faith,  however,  do  not  counterbalance  the  great  fact 
of  the  national  unbelief  which  becomes  more  marked.  This  tragic  fact  is 
the  subject  of  a  final  testimony  which  John  the  Baptist  renders  to  Jesus 
before  he  leaves  the  scene  (iii.  22-36).  They  are  both  baptizing  in  Judea; 
John  takes  advantage  of  this  proximity  to  proclaim  Him  yet  once  more  as 
the  Bridegroom  of  Israel.  Then,  in  the  face  of  the  marked  indifference  of 
the  people  and  the  rulers  towards  the  Messiah,  he  gives  utterance  to  that 
threatening — the  last  echo  of  the  thunders  of  Sinai,  the  final  word  of  the  Old 
Testament  (ver.  36) :  "  He  that  refuseth  obedience  to  the  Son  shall  not  see 
life;  but  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him." 

On  the  occasion  of  this  momentary  contemporaneousness  of  the  two 
ministries  of  Je'sus  and  John,  the  evangelist  makes  the  following  remark 
which  surprises  us  (ver.  24) :  "  For  John  had  not  yet  been  cast  into  prison." 
Nothing  in  the  preceding  narrative  could  have  given  rise  to  the  idea  that 
John  had  already  been  arrested.  Why  this  explanation  without  ground? 
Certainly  the  author  wishes  to  correct  a  contrary  opinion  which  he  sup- 
poses to  exist  in  the  minds  of  his  readers.  The  comparison  with  Matt.  iv. 
12  and  Mark  i.  14  *  explains  for  us  this  correction  which  is  introduced  by 
the  way. 

With  this  general  unbelief,  on  the  one  hand,  and  this  defective  faith  in 
some,  is  joyfully  contrasted  the  spectacle  of  a  whole  city  which,  without 
the  aid  Of  any  miracle,  welcomes  Jesus  with  faith,  as  all  Israel  should  have 
received  Him.  And  it  is  Samaria  which  gives  this  example  of  faith  (iv.  1- 
42).     It  is  the  prelude  of  the  future  lot  of  the  Gospel  in  the  world. 

Jesus  returns  to  Galilee  for  the  second  time  (iv.  43-54).  The  reception 
which  He  there  meets  from  His  fellowr-countrymen  is  more  favorable  than 
that  which  He  found  in  Judea;  they  feel  themselves  honored  by  the  sensa- 
tion which  their  fellow-citizen  has  produced  in  the  capital.  But  it  is  always 
the  worker  of  miracles,  the  thaumaturgist,  whom  they  salute  in  Him.  As 
an  example  of  this  disposition,  is  related  the  healing  of  the  son  of  a  promi- 
nent personage  who  hastens  from  Capernaum  to  Cana  at  the  first  report 
of  the  arrival  of  Jesus. 

1  "Jesus,  having  heard  that  John  was  de-  that  John  was  delivered  up,  Jesus  came  into 
livered  up,  withdrew  into  Galilee."    "After       Galilee." 


ANALYSIS.  57 

We  meet  here  also  with  a  remark  (ver.  54)  intended  to  combat  a  false 
notion  for  which  the  preceding  narrative  could  not  have  given  occasion  : 
the  confusion  between  the  two  returns  to  Galilee  which  had  been  previ- 
ously mentioned  (i.  44  and  iv.  3).  The  author  brings  out  the  distinction 
between  these  two  arrivals  by  means  of  the  difference  in  the  two  miracles, 
both  performed  at  Cana,  which  signalized  them.  The  cause  of  the  confu- 
sion which  he  labors  to  dispel  is  easily  pointed  out :  it  is  found  in  the  nar- 
rative of  our  Synoptics;  comp.  besides  the  passages  already  cited,  Luke  iv. 
14  (together  with  the  entire  context  which  precedes  and  follows). 

Up  to  this  point  we  have  seen  the  work  of  Jesus  extend  itself  to  all  parts 
of  the  Holy  Land  in  succession,  and  we  have  looked  upon  various  mani- 
festations either  of  true  faith  (in  the  disciples  and  the  inhabitants  of  Sy char), 
or  of  faith  mingled  with  a  carnal  alloy  (in  the  believers  of  Jerusalem  and 
Galilee),  or  of  indifference  or  entire  unbelief  (at  Jerusalem  and  in  Judea), 
which  it  called  forth.  We  think  that  it  is  in  harmony  with  the  evangelist's 
thought,  to  make  here,  at  the  end  of  the  fourth  chapter,  a  pause  in  the 
narrative.  Till  now  we  have  had  only  a  period  of  preparation,  in  which 
various  moral  phenomena  have  been  announced,  rather  than  distinctly 
emphasized.  A  change  is  made  from  chap.  v.  onward.  The  general  move- 
ment, especially  at  Jerusalem,  determines  itself  in  the  direction  of  unbe- 
lief; it  goes  on  ever  increasing  as  far  as  the  end  of  chap,  xii.,  where  it 
reaches  its  provisional  limit.  Here  the  author  arrests  himself,  to  cast  a 
glance  backward,  in  order  to  search  into  the  causes  of  this  moral  catastro- 
phe and  to  point  out  the  irremediable  gravity  of  it.  What  is  related,  there- 
fore, from  chap.  v.  to  the  end  of  chap,  xii.,  forms  the  third  part  of  the  book, 
the  second  part  of  the  narrative  properly  so  called. 

III.  The  development  of  the  national  unbelief  (chap,  v.-xii.).  Although 
Jesus  had  determined  to  leave  Judea  in  consequence  of  a  malevolent  re- ' 
port  made  to  the  Pharisees  respecting  His  work  in  that  region  (iv.  1, 3),  from 
chap.  v.  onward  we  find  Him  again  at  Jerusalem.  He  desired  to  make  a 
new  attempt  in  that  capital.  For  this  purpose  He  takes  advantage  of  one 
of  the  national  feasts,  probably  that  of  Purim,  which  occurred  a  month  be- 
fore the  Passover ;  His  thought  undoubtedly  was  to  prolong  His  sojourn 
in  the  capital,  if  it  were  possible,  until  this  latter  feast.  Put  the  healing 
of  the  impotent  man  on  a  Sabbath  caused  the  concealed  hatred  on  the  part 
of  the  rulers  against  Him  to  break  forth ;  and  when  He  justifies  Himself 
by  alleging  His  filial  duty  to  labor  in  the  w oik  of  salvation  which  His 
Father  is  accomplishing,  their  indignation  knows  no  longer  any  limits ;  He 
is  accused  of  speaking  blasphemy  in  making  Himself  equal  with  God. 
Jesus  defends  Himself  by  showing  that  this  alleged  equality  with  God  is,  in 
fact,  only  the  most  profound  dependence  on  God.  Then,  in  support  of  this 
testimony  which  He  bears  to  Himself,  He  cites  not  only  that  of  John  the 
Paptist,  but  especially  that  of  the  Father,  first,  in  the  miraculous  works 
which  He  gives  Him  to  perform,  and  then  in  the  Scriptures — in  particu- 
lar, in  the  writings  of  Moses,  in  whose  name  He  is  accused.  By  this  de- 
fense, to  which  the  recently  accomplished  miracle  gives  an  irresistible 
force,  He  escapes  the  present  danger ;  but  He  sees  Himself  obliged  im- 


58  BOOK    II.      THE   GOSPEL. 

mediately  to  leave  Judea,  which  for  a  long  time  remains  shut  against 
Him. 

In  chap.  vi.  we  find  Him,  therefore,  again  in  Galilee. 

The  Passover  is  near  (ver.  4).  Jesus  cannot  go  and  celebrate  it  at  Jeru- 
salem. But  God  prepares  for  Him,  as  well  as  for  His  disciples,  an  equiv- 
alent in  Galilee.  He  repairs  with  them  to  a  desert  place  ;  the  multitudes 
follow  Him  thither  ;  He  receives  them  compassionately  and  extemporizes 
for  them  a  divine  banquet  (the  multiplication  of  the  loaves).  The  people 
are  enraptured  ;  but  it  is  not  the  hunger  and  thirst  for  righteousness  which 
excites  them;  it  is  the  expectation  of  the  earthly  enjoyments  and  gran- 
deurs of  the  Messianic  Kingdom,  which  seems  to  them  close  at  hand ; 
they  desire  to  make  Him  a  King  (vi.  15).  Jesus  measures  the  danger  with 
which  this  carnal  enthusiasm  threatens  His  work.  And  as  He  knows 
how  accessible  His  apostles  still  are  to  this  spirit  of  error,  and  perhaps 
discerns  in  some  one  among  them  the  author  of  this  movement,  He 
makes  haste  to  isolate  them  from  the  people  by  causing  them  to  recross 
the  sea.  He  Himself  remains  alone  with  the  multitudes,  in  order  to 
quiet  them ;  then,  He  commends  His  work  anew  to  the  Father  in  solitude, 
and  thereafter,  walking  on  the  waters,  He  rejoins  His  disciples  who  are 
struggling  against  the  wind ;  and  on  the  next  day,  in  the  synagogue  of 
Capernaum,  where  the  people  come  to  rejoin  Him,  He  speaks  in  such  a 
way  as  to  cool  their  false  zeal.  He  gives  them  to  understand  that  He  is 
by  no  means  such  a  Messiah  as  the  one  whom  they  are  seeking,  that  He 
is  "  the  heavenly  bread  "  designed  to  nourish  souls  that  are  spiritually 
hungry.  He  pushes  so  far  His  opposition  to  the  common  ideas  that  almost 
the  whole  body  of  His  disciples  who  habitually  follow  Him  break  with 
Him.  Not  content  with  this  purification,  Jesus  even  wishes  to  make  it 
penetrate  further,  even  into  the  circle  of  the  Twelve,  to  whom  with  bold- 
ness he  gives  the  liberty  of  withdrawing  also.  We  can  understand  that  it 
was  especially  to  Judas,  the  representative  of  the  carnal  Messianic  idea 
among  the  Twelve,  that  He  thus  opened  the  door ;  the  evangelist  him- 
self remarks  this  as  he  closes  this  incomparable  narrative  (vv.  70-71). 

A  whole  summer  passes,  respecting  which  we  learn  nothing.  The 
feast  of  Tabernacles  draws  near  (chap.  vii.).  Jesus  has  an  interview  with 
His  brethren ;  they  are  astonished  that,  having  already  failed  to  go  and 
celebrate  at  Jerusalem  the  two  feasts  of  the  Passover  and  Pentecost,  He 
does  not  seem  disposed  to  repair  to  this  one, in  order  to  manifest  Himself 
also  to  His  adherents  in  Judea.  He  replies  to  them  that  the  moment  for 
His  public  manifestation  as  the  Messiah  has  not  yet  come.  This  moment, 
indeed— He  knows  it  well— will  infallibly  be  that  of  His  death;  now  His 
work  is  not  yet  finished.  He  repairs  to  Jerusalem,  however,  but  secretly, 
as  it  were,  and  only  towards  the  middle  of  the  feast ;  He  thus  takes  the 
authorities  by  surprise,  and  gives  them  no  time  to  take  measures  against 
Him.  On  the  last  and  great  day  of  the  feast,  He  compares  Himself  to 
the  rock  in  the  wilderness  whose  waters  of  old  quenched  the  thirst  of  the 
fainting  people.  Lively  discussions  in  regard  to  Him  arise  among  Hia 
hearers.    At  every  word  wnich  He  utters  He  is  interrupted  by  His  adversa- 


ANALYSIS.  59 

ries,and  while  a  part  of  His  hearers  recognize  in  Him  a  prophet,  and  some 
even  declare  Him  to  be  the  Christ,  He  is  obliged  to  reproach  others  with 
cherishing  towards  Him  feelings  inspired  by  the  one  who  is  a  liar  and 
murderer  from  the  beginning.  All  the  discourses  which  fill  chaps  vii  I 
and  vm.  are  summed  up,  as  He  Himself  says,  in  these  two  words  :  judg-  j 
mmt  and  testimony;  judgment  on  the  moral  state  of  the  people,  testimony 
given  to  His  own  Messianic  and  divine  character.  A  first  judicial  meas- ' 
Jire  is  taken  against  Him.  Officers  are  sent  out  by  theTu&ritTes  to  lay 
hold  of  Him  in  the  temple  where  He  is  speaking  (vii.  32).  But  the  power 
of  His  word  on  their  consciences  and  the  power  of  the  public  sentiment, 
still  favorable  to  Jesus,  arrest  them ;  they  return  without  having  laid  hands 
upon  Him  (ver.  45).  The  rulers  then  take  a  new  step.  They  declare 
every  one  excommunicated  from  the  synagogue  who  shall  recognize 
Jesus  as  the  Messiah  (comp.  ix.  22) ;  and  in  consequence  of  one  of  His 
sayings  which  seems  to  them  blasphemous  ("  Before  Abraham  was,  I  am," 
vm.  58),  they  make  a  first  attempt  to  stone  Him. 

Chapter  ix.  also  belongs  to  this  sojourn  at  the  feast  of  Tabernacles. 
A  new  Sabbath  miracle,  the  healing  of  the  man  who  was  born  blind  ex- 
asperates the  rulers.  In  the  name  of  the  legal  ordinance,  this  miracle 
should  not  be,  cannot  have  been.  The  blind  man  reasons  in  an  inverse 
way  :  the  miracle  is;  therefore,  the  Sabbath  has  not  been  violated.  This 
unsettled  conflict  ends  with  the  violent  expulsion  of  the  blind  man. 
Jesus  reveals  to  this  man  His  divine  character,  and,  after  having  cured 
him  of  his  double  blindness,  receives  him  into  the  number  of  His  own. 
Thereupon,  in  chap,  x.,  He  describes  Himself  as  the  divine  Shepherd  who 
brings  His  own  sheep  from  the  ancient  theocratic  sheepfold,  in  order  to 
lead  them  to  life,  while  the  mass  of  the  flock  is  led  to  the  slaughter  by 
those  who  have  constituted  themselves  their  directors  and  masters.  ' 
Finally,  he  announces  the  incorporation  in  His  flock  of  new  sheep 
brought  from  other  sheepfolds  (ver.  1G).  On  hearing  this  discourse,  there  is 
a  still  more  marked  division  among  the  people,  between  His  adversaries 
and  His  partisans  (vv.  19-21). 

Three  months  elapse ;  the  evangelist  does  not  speak  of  the  use  made 
of  them.  It  cannot  be  supposed  that,  in  the  condition  in  which  matters 
were,  Jesus  passed  all  this  time  at  Jerusalem  or  even  in  Judea— He  who, 
before  the  scenes  of  this  character,  had  been  able  to  reappear  at  Jerusa- 
lem only  unawares.  He  undoubtedly  returned  into  Galilee.  At  the  end 
of  December,  Jesus  goes  to  the  feast  of  the  Dedication  (x.  22-39).  The 
Jews  surround  Him,  resolved  to  wrest  from  Him  the  grand  declaration  : 
"Tell  us  whether  thou  art  the  Christ?"  Jesus,  as  always,  affirms  the 
thing  while  avoiding  the  word.  He  emphasizes  His  perfect  unity  with 
the  Father,  which  necessarily  implies  His  Messianic  character.  The  ad-  ' 
versaries  already  take  up  stones  to  stone  Him.  Jesus  makes  them  fall 
from  their  hands  by  this  question  (ver.  32) :  "  I  have  shown  you  from  my 
Father  many  good  works;  for  which  one  do  you  stone  me?"  He  well 
knew  that  it  was  His  two  previous  miracles  (chaps,  v.  and  ix.)  which  had 
caused  their  hatred  to  overflow.    Then  He  appeals,  against  the  accusation 


60  BOOK   II.      THE  GOSPEL. 

of  blasphemy,  to  the  divine  character  attributed  by  the  Old  Testament 
itself  to  the  theocratic  authorities— a  fact  which  should  have  prepared 
Israel  to  believe  in  the  divine  character  of  the  supreme  messenger,  the 
Messiah. 

From  Jerusalem  Jesus  betakes  Himself  to  Perea,  into  the  regions  where 
John  had  baptized,  into  that  region  which  had  been  the  cradle  of  His 
work  (x.  -10-42). 

It  is  there  (chap,  xi.)  that  the  appeal  of  the  sisters  of  Lazarus  reaches 
Him.  We  are  surprised  to  see  (ver.  1)  Bethany  designated  as  the  village 
of  Mary  and  Martha.  As  these  two  sisters  have  not  yet  been  named,  how 
can  the  mention  of  them  serve  to  give  the  reader  information  respecting 
the  village.  It  must,  indeed,  be  admitted,  here  also,  that  the  author 
makes  an  allusion  to  other  narratives  which  he  supposes  to  be  known  to 
the  readers  (comp.  Luke  x.  88-42;  then  also  John  xi.  2  with  Matt.  xxvi. 
[G-13  and  Mark  xiv.  3-9).  The  miracle  of  the  raising  of  Lazarus  completes 
i  that  for  which  the  two  preceding  ones  had  prepared  the  way.  It  brings 
to  maturity  the  plans  of  Jesus'  enemies.  At  the  proposal  of  Caiaphas 
(xi.  49,  50),  the  Sanhedrim  decide  to  rid  themselves  of  the  impostor. 
And  while  Jesus  withdraws  to  the  north,  to  the  neighborhood  of  an  isolated 
hamlet  named  Ephraim,  the  rulers  determine  at  length  to  take  a  first 
public  measure  against  His  person.  Every  Israelite  is  called  upon  to  tell 
the  place  where  Jesus  is  to  be  found  (ver.  57).  At  that  time,  perhaps, 
there  sprang  up  in  the  heart  of  Judas  the  first  thought  of  treachery. 
Shortly  afterwards,  six  days  before  the  Passover,  Jesus  sets  out  for  Jeru- 
salem ;  He  stops  at  Bethany,  and  there,  at  a  banquet  which  is  offered  Him 
by  His  friends,  He  detects  the  first  manifestation  of  the  murderous  hatred 
of  Judas  (xii.  4,  5). 

On  the  next  day  the  royal  entrance  of  Jesus  into  His  capital  takes 
place;  this  event  realizes  the  wish  which  His  brethren  expressed  six 
months  before.  His  miracles — the  raising  of  Lazarus,  in  particular — have 
excited  to  the  highest  degree  the  enthusiasm  of  the  pilgrims  who  came  to 
the  feast ;  the  rulers  are  paralyzed,  as  it  were,  and  do  nothing.  Thus  is 
accomplished  the  great  Messianic  act  by  which,  once  at  least,  Jesus  says 
publicly  to  Israel :  "  Behold  thy  King."  But,  at  the  same  time,  the  rage 
(  of  His  adversaries  is  pushed  thereby  to  extremity  (xii.  9-19).  The  resur- 
rection of  Lazarus  and  the  public  homage  which  resulted  from  it — these, 
therefore,  according  to  the  narrative  of  John,  were  the  two  immediate 
causes  of  the  catastrophe  which  had  long  since  been  preparing. 

Jesus  was  not  ignorant  of  what  was  passing ;  He  was  not  indifferent  to 
it.  The  occasion  was  afforded  Him  of  giving  utterance  in  the  temple 
itself  to  the  impressions  of  His  heart,  in  these  days  when  He  saw  the  end 
approaching.  Certain  Greeks  asked  that  they  might  speak  with  Him 
(ver.  20).  Like  an  instrument  whose  stretched  strings  become  sonorous 
at  the  first  contact  with  the  bow,  His  soul  responded  to  that  appeal.  The 
Greeks  ?  Yes,  certainly  ;  the  Gentile  world  is  about  to  open  itself;  the 
power  of  Satan  is  about  to  crumble  in  this  vast  domain  of  the  Gentile 
world  and  to  give  place  to  that  of  the  divine  monarch.    But  words  cannot 


ANALYSIS.  61 

suffice  for  such  a  work ;  death  is  necessary.  It  is  from  the  height  of  the 
instrument  of  punishment  that  Jesus  will  draw  all  men  to  Himself.  And 
what  anguish  does  not  that  bloody  prospect  cause  Him !  His  soul  is 
moved,  even  troubled  hy  it.  John  alone  has  preserved  for  us  the  story  of 
that  exceptional  hour.  It  was  the  close  of  His  public  ministry.  After 
having  yet  once  more  invited  the  Jews  to  believe  in  the  light  which  was, 
about  to  be  veiled  from  them,  "He  departed,"  he  says,  "and  did  hide/ 
Himself  from  them"  (ver.  36). 

Having  arrived  at  this  point,  the  evangelist  casts  a  glance  backward  on 
the  way  which  has  been  gone  over, — on  the  public  ministry  of  Jesus  in 
Israel.  He  asks  himself  how  the  unbelief  of  the  Jews  has  been  able  to 
resist  so  many  and  so  great  miracles  (ver.  37  ff.),  so  many  and  so  powerful 
teachings  (ver.  44  ff.). 

This  general  blindness,  however,  had  not  been  universal  (ver.  42).  The 
divine  light  had  penetrated  into  many  hearts,  even  among  the  members 
of  the  Sanhedrim  ;  the  fear  of  the  Pharisees  alone  prevented  them  from 
I  confessing  their  faith.  In  fact,  even  in  this  part  of  the  Gospel  which  is 
devoted  to  tracing  the  progress  of  the  national  unbelief,  the  element  of 
faith  is  not  entirely  wanting.  Throughout  the  whole  narrative,  we  can 
follow  the  steps  of  a  development  of  faith  parallel  with,  although  subor- 
dinate to  that  of  unbelief:  thus,  in  the  confession  of  Peter,  chap.  vi. ;  in 
the  selection  which  is  effected  at  Jerusalem  (chaps,  vii.  viii.) ;  in  the  case  of 
the  man  born  blind,  in  chap,  ix.,  and  in  that  of  those  sheep,  in  chap,  x., 
who,  at  the  shepherd's  call,  follow  Him  out  of  the  theocratic  sheepfold; 
finally,  in  the  case  of  the  numerous  adherents  in  Bethany  and  in  that  of 
the  multitudes  who  accompany  Jesus  on  Palm  Sunday.  These  are  the 
hearts  prepared  to  form  the  Church  of  Pentecost. 

IV.  As  since  chap,  v.,  we  have  seen  the  tide  of  unbelief  prevailing,  so, 
from  chap,  xiii.,  it  is  faith  in  the  person  of  the  disciples  which  becomes 
the  preponderant  element  of  the  narrative ;  and  that  even  till  this  faith 
has  reached  its  relative  perfection  and  Jesus  is  able  to  give  thanks  for  the 
finished  work  (chap.  xvii.).  This  development  is  effected  by  manifesta- 
tions, no  longer  of  power,  but  of  love  and  light.  There  is,  first,  the  wash- 
ing of  the  feet,  intended  to  make  them  understand  that  true  glory  is 
found  in  serving,  and  to  uproot  from  their  hearts  the  false  Messianic 
ideal  which  still  hid  from  them,  in  this  regard,  the  divine  thought  realized 
in  Jesus.  Then  there  are  the  discourses  in  which  He  explains  to  them  in 
words  that  which  He  has  just  revealed  to  them  in  act.  First  of  all,  He 
quiets  their  minds  with  regard  to  the  approaching  separation  (xiii.  31-xiv. 
31) ;  it  will  be  followed  by  a  near  reunion,  His  spiritual  return.  For  death 
will  be  for  Him  the  way  to  glory,  and  if  they  cannot  follow  Him  now  into 
the  perfect  communion  of  the  Father,  they  will  be  able  to  do  so  later  in 
the  way  which  He  is  about  to  open  to  them.  In  the  meantime,  by  the 
strength  which  He  will  communicate  to  them,  they  will  accomplish  in 
His  stead  the  work  for  which  He  has  only  been  able  to  prepare.  If  they 
love  Him,  let  them  rejoice,  therefore,  in  His  departure,  instead  of  sorrowing 
because  of  it,  and  let  them,  as  a  last  farewell,  receive  His  peace.  After  this, 


62  BOOK   II.      THE  GOSPEL. 

Jesus  transports  them  in  thought  to  the  moment  when,by  the  bond  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  they  will  live  in  Him  and  He  in  them,  in  the  same  manner  as 
the  branch  lives  when  united  to  the  vine  (xv.  1-xvi.  15) ;  He  points  out  to 
them  the  single  duty  of  this  new  condition,  to  abide  in  Him  through  obe- 
dience to  His  will ;  then  He  describes  to  them,  without  any  reserve,  the 
relation  of  hostility  which  will  be  formed  between  them  and  the  world ; 
but  He  reveals  to  them  also  the  force  which  will  contend  by  means  of 
them,  and  by  means  of  which  they  will  conquer ;  the  Spirit,  who  shall 
glorify  Him  in  them.  Finally,  in  closing  (xvi.  16-33),  He  returns  to  that 
impending  separation  which  so  sorrowfully  preoccupies  their  thoughts. 
He  vividly  portrays  to  them  its  brevity,  as  well  as  its  grand  results.  And, 
summing  up  the  object  of  their  faith  in  these  four  propositions  which  an- 
swer to  one  another  (ver.  28) :  "  I  came  forth  from  the  Father,  and  am 
come  into  the  world  ;  and  now  I  leave  the  world,  and  go  to  the  Father," 
He  illuminates  their  minds  with  such  a  vivid  clearness  that  the  promised 

ti  day,  that  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  seems  to  them  to  have  arrived,  and  they  cry 
{out:  "We  believe  that  thou  earnest  forth  from  God!"  Jesus  answers 
them  :  "  At  last  ye  believe  !  "  And  to  this  profession  of  their  faith  he  affixes, 
in  chap,  xvii.,  the  seal  of  the  act  of  thanksgiving  and  prayer.  He  asks  of 
the  Father  for  Himself  the  reinstatement  in  His  condition  of  glory  which 
is  indispensable  to  Him,  in  order  that  He  may  give  eternal  life  to  those 
wrho  believe  in  Him  on  the  earth.  He  gives  thanks  for  the  gaining  of 
these  eleven  men ;  He  prays  for  their  preservation  and  their  perfect  con- 
secration to  the  work  which  He  entrusts  to  them.  He  intercedes,  finally, 
for  the  whole  world,  to  which  their  word  is  to  bring  salvation.  This  prayer 
of  chap.  xvii.  recapitulates,  in  the  most  solemn  form,  the  work  accom- 
plished in  His  disciples  chaps,  xiii.-xvii.,  after  the  same  manner  as  the 
retrospective  view  at  the  end  of  chap.  xii.  summed  up  the  development 
of  unbelief  in  the  nation  and  among  its  rulers  (chaps,  v.-xii.).  Neverthe- 
less, as  the  element  of  faith  was  not  wanting  in  the  part  describing  unbe- 
lief, so  also  the  fact  of  unbelief  is  found  in  this  picture  of  the  develop- 
ment of  faith.  It  is  represented  in  the  inmost  circle  of  the  disciples  by 
the  traitor,  whose  presence  is  several  times  recalled  to  mind  in  the  course 
of  chap.  xiii.  The  departure  of  Judas  (ver.  30),  marks  the  moment  when 
that  impure  element  finally  gives  place  to  the  spirit  of  Jesus. 

The  history  of  Jesus  contains  something  more  and  other  than  the  reve- 
lation of  the  character  of  God  and  the  impressions  of  faith  and  unbelief  to 
which  that  revelation  gives  rise  among  men.  The  essential  fact  in  this 
history  is  the  work  of  reconciliation  which  is  accomplished,  and  which 
prepares  the  way  for  the  communication  of  the  life  of  God  Himself  to 
believers.  Here  is  the  reason  why  the  history  of  Jesus  includes,  besides 
the  picture  of  His  ministry  of  teaching,  the  account  of  His  death  and 
resurrection.1    It  is  by  means  of  these  last  facts  that  faith  will  enter  into 

1  It  is  easy  to  observe  the  embarrassment  the  substance  of  the  narrative  of  our  Gospel, 
of  those  who,  like  Reuss,  Hilgenfeld,  etc.,  They  cannot  account  for  the  two  following 
make  of  the  idea  of  the  revelation  of  the  Logos       parts. 


ANALYSIS.  63 

complete  possession  of  its  object  and  will  reach  its  full  maturity,  as  it  is 
by  means  of  them,  also,  that  the  refusal  will  be  consummated  which  con- 
stitutes final  unbelief. 

V.  The  whole  story  of  the  Passion,  in  chaps,  xviii.  and  xix.,  is  related  I 
from  the  point  of  view  of  Jewish  unbelief,  which  is  consummated  in  put- 
ting the  Messiah  to  death.  This  part  is  connected  with  the  previous  one, 
in  which  the  development  of  this  unbelief  was  related  (v.-xii.).  At  the 
very  outset,  we  remark  the  complete  omission  of  the  scene  in  Gethsem- 
ane ;  but,  after  the  numerous  allusions  to  the  Synoptical  narratives  which 
we  have  already  established,  these  words :  "  Having  said  this,  He  went 
away  with  His  disciples  beyond  the  brook  Cedron  into  a  garden,  into 
which  He  entered  with  His  disciples,"  can  only  be  regarded  as  a  reference  to 
the  account  of  that  struggle  which  was  known  from  the  earlier  writings. 
Then  follows  the  deliverance  of  the  disciples  by  reason  of  the  powerful 
impression  of  the  words  :  "  I  am  he."  On  the  occasion  of  the  striking  of 
the  high  priest's  servant  with  the  sword,  Peter  and  Malchus  are  desig- 
nated by  name  in  this  Gospel  only.  The  story  of  the  trial  of  Jesus  mentions 
only  the  preliminary  examination  which  took  place  in  the  house  of  Annas. 
But  by  expressly  designating  this  appearance  for  trial  as  theirs*  (ver.  13 : 
"  to  Annas  first  "),  even  though  a  second  one  is  not  related,  and  by  indica- 
ting the  sending  of  Jesus  to  Caiaphas  (ver.  24 :  "Annas  sent  Jesus  bound 
to  Caiaphas,  the  high  priest "),  the  evangelist  gives  us  to  understand,  as 
clearly  as  possible,  that  he  supposes  other  accounts  to  be  known,  which 
complete  what  is  omitted  in  his  own.  The  three  denials  of  St.  Peter  are 
not  related  in  succession  ;  but  they  are,  as  must  in  reality  have  been  the 
fact,  interwoven  with  the  phases  of  the  trial  of  Jesus  (xviii.  15-27).  The: 
description  of  the  appearance  before  Pilate  (xviii.  2S-xix.  16)  reveals  with 
an  admirable  precision  the  tactics  of  the  Jews,  at  once  audacious  and 
crafty.  The  instinct  of  truth  and  the  respect  for  the  mysterious  person  of 
Jesus  which  restrain  Pilate  until  he  finally  yields  to  the  requirements  of 
personal  interest,  the  cunning  of  the  Jews,  who  pass  without  shame  from 
one  charge  to  another,  and  end  by  wresting  from  Pilate  through  fear  what 
they  despair  of  obtaining  from  him  in  the  name  of  justice,  but  who  only 
obtain  this  shameful  victory  by  renouncing  their  dearest  hope  and  bind- 
ing themselves  as  vassals  to  the  heathen  empire  (xix.  15 :  "  We  have  no 
king  but  Csesar  "), — all  this  is  described  with  an  incomparable  knowledge 
of  the  situation.  This  is,  perhaps,  the  master-piece  of  the  Johannean 
narrative. 

One  feature  of  the  story  should  be  particularly  noticed.  In  xviii.  28, 
the  Jews  are  unwilling  to  enter  into  Pilate's  palace — "  that  they  might  not 
be  defiled,  but  might  eat  the  Passover."  The  Paschal  feast  was  therefore 
not  yet  celebrated  on  the  day  of  Christ's  death,  according  to  our  Gospel; 
it  was  to  be  celebrated  only  in  the  evening.  It  was,  therefore,  the  14th  of 
Nisan,  the  day  of  tlie  preparation  of  the  Passover.  This  circumstance  is  so 
purposely  made  prominent  in  several  other  passages  (xiii.  1,  29;  xix.  31, 
etc.),  that  we  are  led  to  think  of  other  narratives  which  placed  the  death 
of  Christ  only  on  the  following  day,  the  15th  of  Nisan,  and  after  the  Paschal 


64  BOOK   II.      THE  GOSPEL. 

supper.    Now  this  is  what  the  Synoptical  account  seems  to  do.    A  new 
proof  of  the  constant  relation  existing  between  the  two  narratives. 

In  the  picture  of  the  crucifixion,  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved — that 
mysterious  personage  who  had  already  played  a  quite  peculiar  part  in  the 
last  evening — is  found,  as  the  only  one  among  the  disciples,  near  the  cross. 
To  him  Jesus  entrusts  His  mother.  It  is  he,  also,  who  sees  the  water  and 
the  blood  ilow  from  the  pierced  side  of  Jesus,  and  who  verifies  in  this 
single  fact  the  simultaneous  accomplishment  of  two  prophecies. 

VI.  The  story  of  the  resurrection  (chap,  xx.)  includes  the  description  of 
three  appearances  which  took  place  in  Judea :  that  which  was  granted  to 
Mary  Magdalene,  near  the  sepulchre ;  that  which,  in  the  evening,  took 
place  in  the  presence  of 'all  the  disciples,  and  in  which  Jesus  renewed  to 
the  apostles  their  commission,  and  imparted  to  them  the  first-fruits  of 
Pentecost ;  and,  finally,  that  which  occurred  eight  days  afterwards,  and  in 
which  the  obstinate  unbelief  of  Thomas  was  overcome.  From  this  we 
see  that,  just  as  the  element  of  faith  was  not  entirely  wanting  in  the  scenes 
of  the  Passion  (it  is  sufficient  to  recall  to  mind  the  parts  played  by  the 
disciple  whom  Jesus  loved,  the  women,  Joseph  of  Arimathea,  and  Nico- 
demus),  so  the  element  of  unbelief  is  no  more  wanting  in  the  portion 
intended  to  describe  the  final  triumph  of  faith.  The  exclamation  of  adora- 
tion uttered  by  Thomas,  "My  Lord  and  my  God!"  in  which  the  faith  of 
the  most  incredulous  of  the  disciples  suddenly  takes  the  boldest  flight  and 
fully  reaches  the  height  of  its  divine  object,  as  it  is  described  in  the  pro- 
logue, forms  the  conclusion  of  the  narrative.  Thus  it  is  that  the  end 
connects  itself  with  the  starting-point. 

These  three  aspects  of  the  evangelical  fact  already  indicated  in  the  pro- 
logue :  the  Son  of  God,  Jewish  unbelief,  and  the  faith  of  the  Church  are, 
accordingly,  now  fully  treated ;  the  subject  is  exhausted. 

VII.  The  last  two  verses  of  chap.  xx.  are  the  close  of  the  book.1  The 
author  declares  therein  the  aim  which  he  set  before  himself.  It  is  not  a 
complete  history  that  he  has  desired  to  relate ;  it  is,  as  we  have  ourselves 
proved,  the  selection  of  a  certain  number  of  points  designed  to  produce 
in  the  readers  faith  in  the  Messiahship  and  divinity  of  Jesus — a  faith  in 
which  they  will  find  life  as  he  himself  has  found  it. 

VIII.  Chap,  xxi.,  in  consequence  of  what  precedes,  is  a  supplement. 
Is  it 'from  the  hand  of  the  author?  The  affirmative  and  negative  are 
still  maintained.  It  is  a  matter  of  very  little  importance;  for,  even  if  it  is 
from  another  writer,  the  latter  has  only  written  out  a  story  which  fre- 
quently came  from  the  author's  lips;  so  similar  are  the  style  and  manner 
of  narrating  to  those  of  the  book  itself.  This  appendix  must  have  been 
added  very  early,  and  before  the  publication  of  the  work,  since  it  is  not 
wanting  in  any  manuscript  or  in  any  version.  It  completes  the  story  of 
the  appearances  of  Jesus  by  giving  an  account  of  one  which  took  place  in 

1  Hilgenfeld  believes  himself  able  to  main-  dence.      Renan    says,   without    hesitation, 

tain,  with  some  others,  that  the  narrative  "  With  all  critics,  I  make   the  first  redac- 

continues  even  to  the  end  of  chap.  xxi.    But  tion  of  the  fourth  Gospel  end  at  chap  xx." 

tliia  is  to  come  into  collision  with  the  evi-  (p.  534). 


ANALYSIS.  65 

Galilee.  Jesus  gives  to  the  disciples,  by  a  symbolic  act  which  connects  itself 
with  their  former  worldly  occupation,  a  pledge  of  the  magnificent  success 
which  they  will  obtain  in  their  future  apostleship  (xxi.  1-14).  Then  lie 
reinstates  Peter  in  this  office,  and  announces  to  him  his  future  martyr- 
dom by  which  he  will  completely  efface  the  stain  of  his  denial.  The 
author  takes  advantage  of  this  opportunity  to  restore  the  exact  tenor  of  a 
saying  which  Jesus  had  uttered  on  that  occasion  with  regard  to  the  dis- 
ciple whom  He  loved ;  He  had  been  erroneously  reported  as  saying  that 
this  disciple  would  not  die.  . 

In  this  appendix  we  easily  remark  a  want  of  connection  which  is  for- 
eign to  the  rest  of  the  Gospel.  It  is  a  desultory  narrative,  and  one  whose 
unity  can  only  be  established  in  a  somewhat  artificial  way.  It  must  be 
considered  as  an  amalgam  of  various  reminiscences,  which  tame  on  dif- 
ferent occasions  from  the  lips  of  the  narrator.1 

Verses  24  and  25,  which  close  this  appendix,  are  unquestionably  from  . 
another  hand  than  that  of  the  author  of  the  Gospel.  "  We  know,"  is  said 
in  the  name  of  several.  The  singular,  no  doubt,  returns  in  ver.  23:  "  l\ 
suppose."  But  he  who  speaks  thus  in  his  own  name  is  none  other  than 
that  member  of  the  preceding  collective  body  (ver.  24)  who  holds  the  pen 
for  his  colleagues.  They  bear  witness,  all  of  them  at  once  (ver.  24),  by 
means  of  his  pen  (ver.  25),  that  the  disciple  especially  loved  by  Jesus  is 
the  one  "  who  testifies  these  things  and  wrote  these  things."  From  the 
contrast  between  the  present  testifies  and  the  past  wrote,  it  naturally  follows 
that  the  writers  of  these  lines  added  them  during  the  lifetime  of  the 
author  and  when  his  work  was  already  finished. 

The  entire  book,  thus,  is  composed  of  eight  parts,  of  which  five  form  the 
body  of  the  story,  or  the  narrative  properly  so  called  ;  one  forms  the  pre-   > 
amble  :  one  the  conclusion  :  the  eighth  is  a  supplement. 

The  permanent  basis  of  the  history  which  is  related  is  the  revelation  of 
Jesus  as  the  Messiah  and  Son  of  God  (xx.  30,  31).  On  this  basis  there  ap- 
pear, at  first  in  a  confused  way  (i.  19-iv.),  then  more  and  more  plainly, 
those  two  decisive  moral  facts :  unbelief  and  faith ;  the  unbelief  which 
rejects  the  object  of  faith  in  proportion  as  it  reveals  itself  more  com- 
pletely (v.-xii.),  and  the  faith  which  apprehends  it  with  an  increasing 
eagerness  (xiii.-xvii.) ;  the  unbelief  which  even  goes  so  far  as  to  try  to  de- 
stroy it  (xviii.-xix.),  and  the  faith  which  ends  by  possessing  it  in  its  glori- 
ous sublimity  (xx.). 

This  exposition  would,  of  itself,  be  sufficient  to  set  aside  every  hypoth- 
esis which  is  opposed  to  the  unity  of  the  work.    The  fourth  Gospel  is  j 
indeed,  according  to  the  expression  of  Strauss,  "  the  robe  without  seam  ! 
for  which  lots  may  be  cast,  but  which  cannot  be  divided."    It  is  the 
admirably  graduated  and  shaded  picture  of  the  development  of  unbelief 
and  of  faith  in  the  Word  made  flesh. 


i"This  conclusion    resembles,"    says  M.       or  for  the  initiated  "  (p.'535).    We  do  not  sub* 
Renan,  "  a  succession  of  private  notes,  which       scribe  to  the  last  words, 
have  a  meaning  only  for  him  who  wrote  them 
5 


66  BOOK   II.      THE  GOSPEL. 

CHAPTER  SECOND. 

CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 

Before  approaching  the  questions  which  relate  to  the  way  in  which 
our  Gospel  was  composed,  it  is  fitting  that  we  should  give  an  exact  account 
not  only  of  the  contents  of  the  work,  but  also  of  its  nature,  of  its  tendency, 
and  of  its  literary  characteristics.  This  is  the  study  to  which  we  are  now 
to  devote  ourselves.  It  is  the  more  indispensable,  since  in  modern  times 
very  different  ideas  on  these  various  subjects  have  been  brought  out  from 
those  which  were  previously  current. 

Thus  Reuss  maintained  even  in  his  earliest  works,  and  still  maintains, 
that  the  tendency  of  the  fourth  Gospel  is  not  historical,  but  that  it  is 
purely  theological.  The  author  has  inscribed  a  speculative  idea  at  the 
beginning  of  his  book ;  we  see  from  his  own  narrative,  and  from  comparing 
it  with  that  of  the  Synoptics,  that  he  is  not  afraid  to  modify  the  facts  in 
the  service  of  this  idea,  and  he  develops  it  most  prominently  in  the 
discourses  which  he  puts  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus,  and  which  form  the 
largest  part  of  his  book. 

Baur  shares  in  this  view.  The  fourth  Gospel  is,  according  to  him,  an 
entirely  speculative  work.  The  few  truly  historical  elements  which  may 
be  found  in  it  are  facts  borrowed  from  the  Synoptical  tradition.  Keim 
also,  in  his  Life  of  JesuS,  denies  all  historical  value  to  this  work. 

Another  point  which  the  two  leaders  of  the  schools  of  Strasburg  and  of 
Tubingen  have  sought  to  demonstrate,  is  the  anti-Judaic  tendency  of  our 
Gospel.  It  was  generally  believed  that  this  work  connected  itself  with 
the  revelations  of  the  Old  Testament  and  with  all  the  theocratic  dispensa- 
tions by  a  respectful  and  sympathetic  faith.  These  two  critics  have 
endeavored  to  prove  that,  to  the  author's  view,  the  bond  between  Judaism 
and  the  Gospel  has  no  existence,  and  that  there  reigns  in  his  book,  on  the 
contrary,  a  sentiment  hostile  to  the  entire  Israelitish  economy. 

We  shall  seek,  therefore,  first  of  all  to  elucidate  the  following  three 
points,  so  far  as  it  shall  be  possible  to  do  this  without  encroaching  upon 
the  questions  of  the  authenticity  and  aim  of  the  Gospel,  which  are 
reserved  for  the  Third  Book. 

1.  The  distinctive  features  Of  the  Johannean  narrative  and  its  relations 
to  that  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels. 

2.  The  attitude  assumed  by  this  work  with  reference  to  the  Old  Testament. 

3.  The  forms  of  idea  and  style  which  are  peculiar  to  it. 

1 1.    THE  NARRATIVE  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 

Our  examination  here  must  bear  upon  three  points :  the  general  idea 
of  the  book ;  the  facts ;  the  discourses. 

I.  The  ruling  idea  of  the  work. 

At  the  beginning  of  this  narrative  is  inscribed  a  general  idea,  the  notion 
of  the  incarnate  Logos,  which  may  indeed  be  called  the  ruling  idea  of  the 


CHARACTERISTICS — TIIE   FACTS.  67 

entire  narrative.  This  feature,  it  is  asserted,  profoundly  distinguishes  our 
Gospel  from  the  Synoptical  writings.  The  latter  are  only  collections  of 
isolated  facts  and  detached  sayings  accidentally  united  together,  and  their 
historical  character  is  obvious ;  while  this  speculative  notion,  placed  here 
at  the  beginning  of  the  evangelical  narrative,  immediately  betrays  a 
dogmatic  tendency  and  impresses  on  th«  whole  book  the  stamp  of  a 
theological  treatise.  Reusa  even  goes  so  far  as  to  claim  that  the  term  goapd 
cannot  be  applied  to  this  work  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  given  to  the 
other  three,  as  designating  a  history  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus.  It  is  neces- 
sary to  go  back  to  the  wholly  spiritual  sense  which  this  term  had  at  the 
beginning,  when,  in  the  New  Testament,  it  denoted  the  message  of  salva- 
tion in  itself  considered,  without  the  least  notion  of  an  historical  setting 
forth  of  it. 

This  general  estimate  seems  to  me  to  rest  upon  two  errors.  A  ruling 
idea,  formulated  in  the  prologue,  certainly  presides  over  the  narrative 
which  follows,  and  sums  it  up.  But  is  this  feature  peculiar  to  the  fourth 
Gospel  ?  It  is  found  again  in  the  first  Gospel,  which  is  opened  by  these 
words,  containing,  as  we  have  seen,  an  entire  programme :  "  Genealogy  of 
Jesus  Christ,  the  son  of  David,  the  son  of  Abraham."  It  is  unnecessary  to 
show  again  how  this  notion  of  the  Messianic  royalty  of  Jesus  and  of  the 
fulfillment  by  Him  of  all  the  promises  made  to  Israel  in  David,  and  to  the 
world  in  Abraham,  penetrates  into  the  smallest  details  of  Matthew's  nar- 
rative. The  same  is  true  of  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  which  opens  with  these 
words :  "  The  beginning  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God." 
This  is  the  formula  which  sums  up  the  whole  narrative  that  is  to  follow: 
Jesus,  realizing,  in  His  life  as  Messiah-King,  the  wisdom  and  power  of  a 
being  who  has  come  from  God.  St.  Luke  has  not  himself  expressed  the 
idea  which  governs  his  book ;  but  it  is  nevertheless  easy  to  discover  it :  the 
Son  of  man,  the  perfect  representative  of  human  nature,  bringing  gratui- 
tously the  salvation  of  God  to  all  that  bears  the  name  of  man.  If,  then, 
the  fourth  Gospel  also  has  its  primal  idea — that  of  the  Son  of  God  having 
appeared  in  the  form  of  the  Son  of  man — this  feature  by  no  means  consti- 
tutes, as  is  claimed,  a  "capital  difference  "  between  this  work  and  the  other 
three.  The  central  idea  is  different  from  those  of  these  latter  three  :  that 
is  all.  Each  of  them  has  its  own  idea,  because  no  one  of  the  four  writers 
has  told  his  story  solely  for  the  purpose  of  telling  it.  They  tell  their  story, 
each  one  of  them,  in  order  to  set  in  relief  one  aspect  of  the  person  of  Jesus, 
which  they  present  especially  to  the  faith  of  their  readers.  They  all  pro- 
pose, not  to  satisfy  curiosity,  but  to  save. 

The  second  error  connected  with  the  estimate  of  Reuss  is  this  :  a  general 
idea,  placed  at  the  head  of  a  narrative,  cannot  fail  to  impair  its  historical 
character.  This  is  not  so.  Would  the  description  of  the  life  and  conquests 
of  Alexander  the  Great  become  a  didactic  treatise,  because  the  author  gave 
as  an  introduction  to  the  history  that  great  idea  which  his  hero  was  called 
to  realize :  the  fusion  of  the  East  and  the  West,  long  separated  and  hostile, 
into  one  civilized  world?  Or  would  the  author  of  a  life  of  Napoleon  com- 
promise the  fidelity  of  his  narrative  because  he  placed  it  under  the  control 


68  EOOK  n.      THE  GOSPEL. 

of  this  idea:  the  restoration  of  France  after  the  revolutionary  tempest?  Or 
must  one,  in  order  to  relate  in  conformity  with  the  actual  truth  the  life  of 
Luther,  give  up  bestowing  upon  him  the  title :  The  reformer  of  the  Church? 
Every  great  historic  fact  is  the  expression,  the  realization  of  an  idea;  and 
this  idea  constitutes  the  essence,  the  greatness,  even  the  truth  of  the  fact. 
T<  i  make  this  prominent  even  at  the  beginning  is  not  to  render  the  fact  sus- 
picious; it  is  to  render  it  intelligible.  The  presence  of  an  idea  at  the  be- 
ginning of  a  narrative  does  not,  then,  exclude  its  historical  character.  The 
only  question  is  to  determine  whether  this  idea  is  the  true  one,  whether  it 
is  evolved  of  itself  from  the  fact,  or  whether  it  is  imported  into  it.  Hase 
expresses  himself  thus  on  this  point :  "  The  nerve  of  the  objection  would  be 
cut  if  Jesus  was  really,  iii  the  metaphysical  sense,  that  which  our  Gospel 
teaches  (the  Word  made  flesh).  I  dare  not  affirm  it."  And  borrowing  the 
avowal  which  Goethe  puts  in  the  mouth  of  Faust :  "  I  know  the  message  in- 
deed," he  says,  "  but  I  lack  the  faith."  Well  and  good !  This  lack  of  faith 
is  an  individual  matter.  But  the  writer  confesses  that  the  beaming  of  an 
idea  across  a  fact  does  not  resolve  it  into  a  myth.  A  fact  without  an  idea 
is  a  body  without  a  soul.  A  notion  like  this  has  no  place  except  in  the 
materialist  system. 

The  prologue  of  the  Johannean  gospel  has,  therefore,  in  itself  nothing 
incompatible  with  the  strictly  historical  character  of  the  narrative  which 
is  to  follow. 

No,  not  necessarily,  it  is  said ;  but  is  there  not  reason  to  fear  that  the 
idea,  when  once  it  has  taken  possession  of  the  author's  mind,  will  influence 
more  or  less  profoundly  the  way  in  which  he  considers  and  sets  forth  the 
facts?  Might  if  not  even  happen  that,  in  all  good  faith, he  should  invent 
the  situations  and  events  which  seemed  to  him  most  fitted  to  place  in  a 
clear  light  the  idea  which  he  has  formed?  Let  us  see  whether  it  is  thus 
in  the  case  with  which  we  are  concerned. 

II.  The  facts. 

Baur  claimed  that  excepting  the  small  number  of  materials  borrowed 
from  the  Synoptics,  the  facts  related  here  are  only  creations  of  the  genius 
of  the  author,  who  sought  to  set  forth  in  this  dramatic  form  the  internal 
dialectics  of  the  idea  of  the  Logos.  Reuss,  without  going  quite  so  far, 
regards  the  narrative  sometimes  as  freely  modified  on  behalf  of  the  idea, 
sometimes  as  wholly  created  for  its  use.  Nicodemus,  the  Samaritan 
woman,  the  Greeks  of  chap,  xii.,  are  only  fictitious  personages,  placed  on 
the  scene  by  the  author  in  order  to  afford  the  opportunity  of  putting  into 
the  mouth  of  Jesus  the  conception  of  His  person  which  he  has  formed 
for  himself.  The  history  related  in  this  Gospel  has  so  little  reality,  that 
even  from  the  beginning  (chap,  v.)  it  seems  to  have  reached  its  end  :  the 
Jews  wish  already  to  put  Jesus  to  death  (v.  16) !  The  visits  to  Jerusalem, 
which  form  the  salient  points  of  the  narration,  are  fictitious  scenes,  the 
theatre  of  which  has  been  chosen  with  the  design  of  contrasting  the  light 
(Jesus)  with  the  darkness  (the  Jewish  authorities),  and  of  furnishing  to 


CHARACTERISTICS — THE   FACTS.  69 

Christ  the  opportunity  of  testifying  of  the  divinity  of  His  person.  For 
this  same  reason,  the  miracles  of  the  fourth  Gospel  are  made  more  won- 
derful than  those  of  the  Synoptics ;  and,  besides,  they  are  presented,  no 
longer  as  works  of  compassion,  but  as  signs  of  the  divinity  of  Jesus.  The 
author  thus  interweaves  them  into  his  theory  of  the  Logos.  The 
account  of  the  Last  Supper  is  omitted,  because,  from  his  idealistic  point 
of  view,  the  author  is  satisfied  with  having  set  forth  the  spiritual  essence 
of  it  in  chap.  vi.  The  scene  in  Gethsemane  is  left  out,  because  it  would 
present  the  Logos  in  a  state  little  worthy  of  His  divine  greatness.  No 
healing  of  a  demoniac  is  related,  because  the  unclean  spirits  are  too 
ignoble  adversaries  for  such  a  being.  No  mention  is  made  of  the  miracu- 
lous birth,  because  that  prodigy  is  thrown  into  the  shade  by  the  greater 
miracle  of  the  incarnation,  etc.,  etc.  It  is  thus  that  the  study  of  the 
narrative,  both  in  itself  and  in  a  comparison  of  it  with  that  of  the 
Synoptics,  reveals  at  every  step  the  alterations  due  to  the  influence  of  the 
idea  upon  the  history. 

In  order  to  study  this  grave  question  with  the  scrupulous  fidelity  which 
it  demands,  we  must  begin  by  verifying  the  essential  characteristics  of  the 
narrative  which  we  have  to  estimate. 

The  first  is  certainly  the  potent  unity  of  the  story.  The  narration  begins 
and  ends  precisely  at  the  point  determined  by  the  plan  of  the  work.  The 
author,  as  we  have  seen,  proposes  to  relate  the  gradual  and  simultaneous 
development  of  unbelief  and  faith  under  the  sway  of  the  increasing 
manifestations  of  the  Christ  as  the  Son  of  God.  His  narrative  has,  thus, 
as  its  starting-point  the  day  on  which,  for  the  first  time,  Jesus  was  revealed 
as  such  by  the  testimony  which  John  the  Baptist,  without  naming  Him 
as  yet,  bore  to  Him  in  presence  of  the  deputation  of  the  Sanhedrim — a 
day  which  was,  as  a  consequence,  also  that  of  the  first  glimmering  of 
faith  in  Jesus  in  the  hearts  of  His  earliest  disciples.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  end  of  the  narrative  places  us  at  the  moment  when  faith  in  Christ, 
fully  revealed  by  His  resurrection,  attained  its  height,  and,  if  we  may  so 
speak,  its  normal  level  in  the  profession :  "  My  Lord  and  my  God," 
coming  from  the  lips  of  the  least  credulous  of  the  disciples. 

Between  these  two  extreme  points  the  history  moves  in  a  connected 
and  progressive  way,  both  on  the  side  of  Jesus,  who,  on  each  occasion 
and  especially  at  each  feast,  adds  to  the  revelation  of  Himself  a  new 
feature  in  harmony  with  a  newly  given  situation  (iii.  14:  the  brazen  ser- 
pent; iv.  10  :  the  living  water;  v.  19  :  the  Son  working  with  the  Father; 
vi.  35:  the  bread  of  life ;  vii.  37  :  the  rock  pouring  forth  living  water; 
viii.  56 :  the  one  in  whom  Abraham  rejoices  ;  ix.  5  :  the  light  of  the  world  ; 
x.  11 :  the  good  shepherd;  xi.  25 :  the  resurrection  and  the  life  ;  xii.  15  : 
the  humble  king  of  Israel;  xiii.  14:  the  Lord  who  serves;  xiv.  6:  the 
way,  the  truth  and  the  life;  xv.  1  :  the  true  vine;  xvi.28:  He  who  has 
come  from  the  Father  and  returns  to  the  Father ;  xvii.  ."> :  Jesus  the  <  Jhrist ; 
xviii.  37 :  the  king  in  the  kingdom  of  truth  ;  xix.  30 :  the  true  Paschal 
lamb;  xx.  28 :  our  Lord  and  God), — and  with  respect  to  faith,  which  in 
creases  by  appropriating  to  itself  each  one  of  these  testimonies  in  acts  and 


70  BOOK  II.      THE  GOSPEL. 

words,  and  of  which  the  progress  is  frequently  marked  by  forms  of  ex- 

ipression  such  as  this :  "And  his  disciples  believed  on  him  "  (ii.  11 ;  comp. 
vi.  GS,  G9;  xi.  15;  xvi.  30,  31;  xvii.  8;  xx.  8,  29),— and  with  reference  to 
Jewish  unbelief,  the  hostile  measures  of  which  succeed  each  other  with  an 
increase  of  violence  all  whose  stages  we  can  verify  (ii.  18,  19 :  refusal  to 
participate  in  the  Messianic  reformation ;  v.  16-18 :  first  explosion  of 
hatred  and  desire  for  murder;  vii.  32:  first  active  measure,  in  the  order 
given  to  the  officers  to  arrest  Jesris ;  viii.  59  :  a  first  attempt  to  stone  Him ; 
ix.  22:  excommunication  of  everyone  who  acknowledges  Him  as  the 
!  Messiah ;  x.  31 :  new  and  more  decided  attempt  to  stone  Him ;  xi.  53  : 
meeting  of  the  Sanhedrim  in  which  the  death  of  Jesus  is  in  principle  de- 
termined upon,  so  that  there  remains  nothing  further  except  to  discover 
the  ways  of  carrying  it  into  execution ;  xi.  57  :  first  official  measure  in  this 
direction  through  the  public  summoning  of  witnesses  against  Jesus ;  xiii. 
27  :  contract  of  the  rulers  with  the  traitor ;  xviii.  3  :  request  for  a  detach- 
ment of  Roman  soldiers  to  effect  the  arrest ;  xviii.  13  and  24 :  sittings  for 
examination  in  the  house  of  Annas  and  for  judgment  in  that  of  Caiaphas ; 
xviii.  28 :  demand  for  execution  addressed  to  Pilate ;  xix.  12 :  last  means 
of  intimidation  employed  to  obtain  his  consent ;  xix.  16 :  the  execution). 
— Such  is  the  history  which  the  fourth  Gospel  traces  out.  And  yet  Reuss 
can  seriously  put  this  question  :  "  Is  there  anywhere  the  least  trace  of  a 
progress,  a  development,  in  any  direction  ?  "  (p.  23) ;  and  Stap  can  affirm 
that  "  the  denouement  might  be  found  on  the  first  page  as  well  as  on  the 
last;  "  and,  finally,  Sabatier  can  speak  of  "  shufflings  about  on  one  spot," 
which  mark  the  course  of  our  Gospel !  Is  not  the  Synoptic  narrative, 
rather,  the  one  against  which  this  charge  might  be  made  ?  For  in  that 
narrative  Jesus  passes  suddenly  from  Galilee  to  Jerusalem,  and  dies  in 
that  city  after  only  five  days  of  conflict.  Is  this  a  sufficient  preparation 
for  such  a  catastrophe  ? — Reuss  takes  offence  at  the  fact  that,  in  v.  16,  it  is 
said  that  they  already  seek  to  put  Him  to  death.  But  he  may  read  pre- 
cisely the  same  thing  in  the  Gospel  of  Mark — the  one  which,  in  his  view, 
is  the  most  primitive  type  of  the  narration — iii.  6  :  "  Then  the  Pharisees 
took  counsel  with  the  Herodians  against  him  to  put  him  to  death."  This 
is  said  after  one  of  the  first  miracles,  and  at  the  beginning  of  the  Galilean 
ministry. 

The  strong  unity  of  the  Johannean  narrative  appears,  finally,  in  the 
precise  and  complete  data  by  means  of  which  the  course  of  Jesus'  minis- 
try is,  in  some  sort,  marked  out,  so  that,  by  means  of  this  work,  and  this 
work  only,  can  we  fix  its  principal  dates  and  make  anew  the  outline  of  it. 
.'  Here  are  the  data  which  it  furnishes  us,  ii.  12,  13 :   a  first  Passover,  at 
,  which  Jesus  inaugurates  His  public  work  ;  it  is  followed  by  a  working  for 
'  several  months  in  Judea,  and  finally  by  a  return  to  Galilee  by  way  of 
Samaria,  about  the  month  of  December  in  that  same  year ;  chap.  v. :  a 
feast  at  Jerusalem,  doubtless  that  of  Purim,  in  the  following  spring  and  a 
month  before  the  Passover ;  vi.  4 :  the  second  Passover,  which  Jesus  can- 
■  not  go  to  Jerusalem  to  celebrate,  so  great  is  the  hostility  towards  Him, 
and  which  He  passes  in  Galilee ;  vii.  2 :  the  feast  of  Tabernacles,  in  the 


CHARACTERISTICS — THE   FACTS.  71 

autumn  of  this  second  year,  to  which  Jesus  is  only  able  to  go  incognito  and,  f 
as  it  were,  by  surprise  ;  x.  22 :  the  feast  of  Dedication,  two  months  later,  in  * 
December,  when,  again,  He  makes  but  one  appearance  in  Jerusalem ; 
finally,  xii.  1 :  the  third  Passover,  when  He  dies.  Here  is  a  series  of  dates 
outlined  by  a  steady  hand,  with  natural  intervals,  which  gives  us  sufficient 
information  as  to  the  course  and  duration  of  our  Lord's  ministry,  and 
which  affords  us  the  means  of  tracing  out  a  rational  delineation  of  it.  The 
only  story  which  does  not  enter  organically  into  this  so  strongly  united 
whole  is  that  of  the  adulterous  woman,  which  logically  appertains  neither 
to  the  development  of  unbelief,  nor  to  that  of  faith,  and  which  would  thus 
be  suspicious  to  a  delicate  ear,  even  if  the  external  testimonies  did  not  as 
positively  exclude  it  as  they  do. 

But,  at  the  same  time,  this  narrative,  so  thoroughly  one,  so  consecutive, 
so  graduated,  forming  such  a  beautiful  whole,  is  found  to  be  astonishingly 
fragmentary.  It  begins  in  the  middle  of  John  the  Baptist's  ministry,  with- 
out having  described  the  first  part  of  it.  It  stops  with  the  scene  concerning 
Thomas,  without  any  mention  being  made  of  the  subsequent  appearances 
in  Galilee,  or  of  the  ascension  itself. — In  vi.  70 :  Jesus  says  to  the  apostles  : 
"  Have  not  I  chosen  you,  the  Twelve?"  And  yet  there  has  not  been  up 
to  this  time  a  single  word  said  of  the  foundation  of  the  apostolate;  the 
reader  is  acquainted  with  only  five  of  the  disciples,  from  the  first  chapter 
onward. — At  ver.  71,  Judas  Iscariot  is  named  as  a  perfectly  well-known  I 
personage ;  and  yet  it  is  the  first  time  that  he  is  introduced  on  the  scene. —  j 
xiv.  22 ;  the  presence  of  another  Judas  among  the  Twelve  is  supposed  to 
be  known ;  and  yet  it  has  not  been  mentioned. — xi.  1,  Bethany  is  called  the 
village  of  Mary  and  Martha,  her  sister ;  and  yet  the  names  of  these  two 
women  have  not  as  yet  been  given. — xi.  2,  Mary  is  designated  as  she  "  who 
had  anointed  the  Lord  with  ointment;  "  and  yet  this  incident,  supposed  to] 
be  known  to  the  reader,  is  not  related  until  afterwards. — ii.  23,  those  are? 
spoken  of  who  believed  at  Jerusalem  on  seeing  the  miracles  ivhich  Jesus  did; . 
iii.  2,  Nicodemus  makes  allusion  to  these  miracles,  and  iv.  45,  it  is  saidj 
that  the  Galileans  received  Jesus  on  His  return  because  they  liad  seen  the 
miracles  which  He  did  at  Jerusalem  ;  and  yet  not  one  of  these  miracles  is 
related. 

We  have  seen  that  from  the  first  Passover  to  Jesus'  return  to  Galilee, 
chap,  iv.,  seven  or  eight  months  elapsed  (from  April  to  December).  Now, 
of  all  that  occurred  during  this  time — in  this  long  sojourn  in  Judea — with 
the  exception  of  the  single  conversation  with  Nicodemus,  we  know  only 
one  fact :  the  continuance  of  the  baptism  of  John  the  Baptist  by  the  side 
of  that  of  Jesus  and  the  last  testimony  given  by  the  forerunner  (iii.  22  ff). 
— From  the  return  of  Jesus  to  Galilee,  chap,  iv.,  to  His  new  journey  to 
Jerusalem,  chap.  v.  (feast  of  Purim),  three  months  elapsed,  which  the 
author  sums  up  in  this  simple  expression  :  after  these  things,  v.  1.— Between 
this  journey  to  Jerusalem  and  the  second  Passover,  chap,  vi.,  there  is  a 
whole  month  of  which  we  know  nothing  except  this  single  statement,  vi. 
2:  "And  a  great  multitude  followed  him,  because  they  saw  the  miracles 
which  he  did  on  the  sick."    Of  these  numerous  miracles  which  attracted 


72  BOOK   II.      THE   GOSPEL. 

the  crowds  not  one  is  related ! — Between  this  Passover,  chap,  vi.,  and  the 
feast  of  Tabernacles,  chap,  vii., — that  is  to  say,  during  the  six  months  from 
April  to  October, — many  things  certainly  occurred ;  we  have  only  these 
two  lines  thereupon,  vii.  1 :  "And  after  that  Jesus  walked  in  Galilee;  for 
He  would  not  walk  in  Judea." — Between  this  feast  and  x.  22  (December), 
two  months,  and  then,  from  that  time  to  the  Passover,  three  months,  of 
which  nothing  (except  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus)  is  reported! — Thus,  of 
I  two  years  and  a  half,  we  "have  twenty  months  touching  which  there  is 
complete  silence ! ' 

In  xviii.  13,  it  is  said  that  Jesus  was  led  to  the  house  of  Annas  first;  this 
expression  gives  notice  of  a  subsequent  session  in  another  place.  The 
account  of  this  session  is  omitted.  It  is  indicated,  indeed  (ver.  24 :  "And 
Annas  sent  Jesus  bound  to  Caiaphas,  the  high-priest"),  but  not  related; 
and  yet  it  is  one  of  the  most  indispensable  links  of  the  history,  since  in 
the  sitting  in  the  house  of  Annas  a  simple  examination  was  carried  on, 
and  in  order  to  a  capital  execution  an  official  session  of  the  Sanhedrim 
was  absolutely  necessary,  at  which  the  sentence  should  be  pronounced 
according  to  certain  definite  forms.  The  subsequent  appearance  before 
Pilate,  when  the  Jews  endeavored  to  obtain  from  him  the  confirmation  of 
the  sentence,  leaves  no  doubt  as  to  the  fact  that  it  had  actually  been  pro- 
nounced. Now  all  this  is  omitted  in  our  narrative,  as  well  the  session  in 
the  house  of  the  high-priest  Caiaphas  as  the  pronouncing  of  the  sentence. 
How  are  we  to  explain  the  omission  of  such  facts  ? — In  iii.  24,  these  words : 
"  Now  John  had  not  yet  been  cast  into  prison,"  imply  the  idea  in  the 
mind  of  the  reader  that,  at  that  moment,  he  had  already  been  arrested. 
But  there  is  not  a  word  in  what  precedes  which  was  fitted  to  occasion 
such  a  misapprehension. 

Is  not  such  a  mode  of  narrating  as  this  a  perpetual  enigma?  On  one 
side,  a  texture  so  firm  and  close,  and  on  the  other  as  many  vacant  places 
as  full  ones,  as  much  of  omission  as  of  matter?  Is  there  a  supposition 
which  can  in  any  way  explain  two  such  contradictory  features  of  one  and 
the  same  narrative.  Yes ;  and  it  is  in  the  relation  of  our  fourth  Gospel  to 
the  three  preceding  ones  that  we  must  seek  this  solution,  as  we  shall 
attempt  to  show. 

The  relation  of  the  Johannean  narrative  to  that  of  the  Synoptic  Gos- 
pels may  be  characterized  by  these  two  features :  Constant  correlation,  on 
the  one  hand,  and  striking  independence,  and  even  superiority,  on  the 
other. 

1.  There  is  no  closer  adaptation  between  two  wheels  fitted  to  each 
other  in  wheelwork,  than  is  observed,  on  a  somewhat  attentive  study, 
between  the  two  narratives  which  we  are  comparing.  The  full  parts  of 
the  one  answer  to  the  blanks  of  the  other,  as  the  prominent  points  of  the 
latter  to  the  vacant  spaces  of  the  former.    John  begins  his  narrative  with 

1  How,  in  the  face  of  such  facts,  can  a  writer  the   materials  furnished  by  the   Synoptics 

wlio  respects   himself,  write   the  following  might  be  placed."    (Stap.  Etudes  historiquet 

lines:  "John,  we  know(l),  does  not  present  et  critiques,  p  259.) 
any  trace  of  gaps,  or  vacant  spaces  in  which 


CHARACTERISTICS — THE   FACTS.  73 

the  last  part  of  the  ministry  of  John  the  Baptist,  without  having  described 
the  first  half  of  it,  without  even  having  given  an  account  of  the  baptism 
of  Jesus;  just  the  reverse  of  what  we  rind  in  the  Synoptics.  He  relates 
the  call  of  the  first  believers  on  the  banks  of  the  Jordan,  without  men- 
tioning their  subsequent  elevation  to  the  rank  of  permanent  disciples  on 
the  shores  of  the  lake  of  Gennesaret ;  again,  the  reverse  of  the  Synoptic 
narrative.  He  sets  forth  a  considerably  long  ministry  in  Judea,  anterior 
to  the  Galilean  ministry,  which  the  Synoptics  omit;  then,  when  he 
reaches  the  period  of  the  Galilean  ministry  so  abundantly  described  by 
his  predecessors,  he  relates,  in  common  with  them,  only  a  single  scene 
belonging  to  it— that  of  chap.  vi.  (we  shall  see  with  what  motive  he 
makes  this  exception),  and,  as  for  all  the  rest  of  these  ten  to  twelve 
months  of  Galilean  labor,  he  limits  himself  to  indicating  the  framework 
and  the  compartments  of  it,  without  filling  them  otherwise  than  by  the 
two  brief  summaries,  ver.  1  of  chap.  vi.  and  ver.  1  of  chap.  vii.  These 
compartments,  left  vacant,  can  only  be  naturally  explained  as  references 
to  other  narratives  with  which  the  author  knows  his  readers  to  be  ac- 
quainted. But,  while  he  passes  on  thus  without  entering  into  the  least 
detail  respecting  the  entire  Galilean  ministry,  he  dwells  with  partiality 
upon  the  visits  to  Jerusalem,  which  he  describes  in  the  most  circumstan- 
tial way,  and  the  omission  of  which  in  the  Synoptics  is  so  striking  a  blank 
in  their  narrative.  In  the  last  visit  to  Jerusalem,  he  omits  the  embar- 
rassing questions  which  were  addressed  to  Jesus  in  the  temple,  but  he 
relates  carefully  the  endeavor  of  the  Greeks  to  see  Him,  which  is  omitted 
by  all  the  other  narratives.  In  the  description  of  the  last  meal,  he  gives 
a  place  to  the  act  of  washing  the  disciples'  feet,  and  omits  that  of  the 
institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper ;  and  in  the  account  of  the  trial  of  Jesus, 
he  takes  notice  of  the  appearance  in  the  house  of  Annas,  which  is 
omitted  by  all  the  others,  and,  in  exchange,  passes  over  in  silence  the 
great  session  of  the  Sanhedrim  in  the  house  of  Caiaphas,  at  which  Jesus 
was  condemned  to  death.  In  the  description  of  the  crucifixion,  he  calls 
to  mind  three  expressions  of  Jesus,  which  are  not  reported  by  his  prede- 
cessors, and  he  omits  the  four  mentioned  by  them.  Among  the  appear- 
ances of  the  risen  Lord,  those  to  Mary  Magdalene  and  Thomas,  omitted  or 
barely  hinted  at  by  the  Synoptics,  are  described  in  a  circumstantial  way; 
one  only  of  the  others  is  recalled,  and  it  is  given  with  quite  peculiar 
details. 

Could  the  closely  fitting  relation  of  this  Gospel  to  the  Synoptics  which 
we  have  pointed  out  be  manifested  more  evidently?  We  do  not  by  any 
means  conclude  from  this  that  John  related  his  story  in  order  to  complete 
them — he  set  before  himself,  surely,  a  more  elevated  aim — but  we  believe 
we  may  affirm  that  he  wrote  completing  them.;  that  to  complete  was,  not 
his  aim,  but  one  of  the  guiding  principles  of  his  narration.  There  was  on 
the  author's  part  a  choice,  a  selection,  determined  by  the  narratives  of  his 
predecessors.  If  his  work  left  us  in  any  doubt  on  this  point,  the  declara- 
tion which  closes  it  must  convince  us :  "  Many  other  signs  did  Jesus  in  the 
presence  of  His  disciples,  which  are  not  written  in  this  book  (ev  ry  /3</3/iw 


74  BOOK   II.      THE   GOSPEL. 

tovtu)."  The  expressions  here  employed  signify  two  things :  1.  That  he 
has  left  aside  a  part  of  the  facts  which  he  might  also  have  related ;  2.  That 
he  has  omitted  these  facts  because  they  were  already  related  in  other 
writings  than  his  own  (this  book,  in  contrast  with  others).  What  were 
these  books  ?  It  is  impossible  not  to  recognize  our  three  Synoptic  Gos- 
pels, from  the  following  indications :  The  choice  of  the  Twelve,  which 
John  refers  to  in  vi.  70,  is  related  in  Mark  iii.  13-19  and  Luke  vi.  12-16. 
The  two  sisters,  Martha  and  Mary,  designated  by  name  in  John  xi.,  as  if 
persons  already  known,  are  introduced  on  the  Gospel  stage  by  Luke  (x. 
3S— 12).  The  confusion  of  the  first  two  returns  to  Galilee  (comp.  John  i. 
44  and  iv.  3),  which  John  so  evidently  makes  it  a  point  to  dispel  (ii.  11  and 
iv.  54),  is  found  in  our  three  Synoptics  (Matt.  iv.  12  and  parallels) ;  and  the 
idea  that  no  activity  of  Jesus  in  Judea  had  preceded  the  imprisonment  of 
John  the  Baptist — an  idea  which  John  corrects  (iii.  24) — is  found  expressly 
enunciated  in  Matthew  and  Mark  (passages  already  cited).  How,  then,  can 
we  doubt  the  close  and  deliberate  correlation  of  John's  narrative  with  that 
of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  ?  Renan  has  always  recognized  it.1  And  Reuss, 
after  having  more  or  less  called  it  in  question, 2  now  consents  to  admit 
it.  He  goes  even  so  far,  as  we  all  shall  soon  see,  as  to  transform  this  cor- 
relation into  a  relation  of  dependence  on  the  part  of  John  with  reference 
to  the  Synoptics.  Baur  and  Hilgenfeld  likewise  recognize  this  relation, 
so  that  it  may  be  regarded  as  a  point  which  has  been  gained. 

Starting  from  this  fact,  therefore,  have  we  not  the  right  to  say  :  That 
two  narratives  which  are  in  so  close  and  constant  relation  to  each  other 
cannot  be  writ.ten  from  entirely  different  points  of  view,  and  that  if  the 
first,  while  seeking,  in  each  of  its  three  forms,  to  bring  out  one  of  the 
salient  characteristics  of  the  person  of  Jesus,  pursues  this  end  on  a  truly 
historical  path,  the  same  must  be  the  case  with  the  other,  which,  at  every 
step,  completes  it  and,  in  its  turn,  is  completed  by  it? 

It  will  be  objected,  perhaps,  that  the  author  of  the  Johannean  narrative, 
being  an  exceedingly  able  man,  labors,  by  means  of  all  that  he  borrows 
from  the  earlier  narratives,  not  to  break  with  the  universally  received 
tradition,  and  at  the  same  time,  by  all  that  he  adds  of  new  matter,  attempts 
to  make  his  dogmatic  conception  prevail,  as  M.  Reuss  says :  in  other 
words,  to  secure  the  triumph  of  his  theory  of  the  Logos. 

This  explanation  must  be  examined  in  the  light  of  the  other  two 
featurea  which  we  have  pointed  out  in  the  relation  between  our  Gospel 
and  the  Synoptics.  I  mean,  the  complete  independence  and  even  the 
decided  historical  superiority  of  the  former. 

Baur  had  affirmed  the  dependence  in  which  John  stands  with  relation 


1  "  The  position  of  the  Johannean  writer  is  others  "  (p.  531). 

thatofan  author  who  is  not  ignorant  of  the  fact  2  He  said  previously:    "One  cannot    dis- 

tliat  the  subject  of  which  he  treats  has  been  cover,  except  with  difficulty,  in  this  Gospel 

already  written  upon,  who  approves  many  the  traces  of  a  relation  with  the  so-called 

things  in  that  which  has  been  said,  but  who  earlier  Gospels.    The  facts  do  not  constrain 

believes  that  he  has  superior  information  and  us  absolutely  to  hold  that  the  author  had  any 

gives  it  without  troubling  himself  about  the  acquaintance  with  our  Synoptic  Gospels." 


CHARACTERISTICS — THE   FACTS.  75 

to  the  Synoptic  narrative,  as  concerning  all  truly  historical  information  ; 
Holtzmann  has  sought  to  prove  this  in  detail,  and  Reuss  now  declares 
himself,  in  spite  of  his  previous  denials,  converted  to  this  opinion.1 

It  is  necessary,  indeed,  to  distinguish  here  between  the  correlation 
which  we  have  just  proved  and  which,  like  every  relation  whatsoever,  is  a 
sort  of  dependence  (but  only  as  to  the  mode  of  narrating),  and  the  depend- 
ence which  has  a  bearing  upon  the  very  knowledge  of  the  facts.  As  Ave 
affirm  the  first,  so  we  are  prepared  to  deny  the  second,  and  to  affirm  that 
the  author  of  the  Johannean  narrative  is  in  possession  of  a  source  of 
information  which  is  peculiar  to  himself,  and  which,  as  to  the  matter  of 
the  narrative,  renders  him  absolutely  independent  of  the  Synoptical  tra- 
dition.    Let  us  consult  the  facts. 

It  is  not  from  the  Synoptics  that  he  knows  the  public  testimony  which 
the  forerunner  rendered  to  Jesus.  For,  before  the  baptism  of  Jesus, 
nothing  of  the  kind  is  or  could  be  attributed  to  him  by  them,  and,  after 
the  baptism,  the  Synoptics  do  not  mention  anything  beyond  that  single 
saying  of  John,  which  is  rather  an  expression  of  doubt :  "  Art  thou  he  that 
should  come,  or  do  we  look  for  another  ?  "  And  yet  the  answer  of  Jesus  on 
occasion  of  the  official  inquiry  of  the  Sanhedrim  respecting  His  Messianic 
authority,  (Matt.  xxi.  23,  and  parallels),  implies  the  existence  of  a  public  and 
well-known  testimony  of«the  forerunner,  such  as  that  which  John  relates  in 
i.  19  ff. — It  is  not  from  the  Synoptics  that  John  has  derived  the  account  of 
the  first  relations  of  Jesus  with  His  earliest  disciples  (chap,  i.) ;  and  yet 
these  relations  are  necessarily  presupposed  by  the  call  of  the  latter  to  the 
vocation  of  fishers  of  men,  on  the  shores  of  the  lake  of  Gennesaret 
(Matt.  v.  18  ff.). — It  is  not  from  the  Synoptics  that  John  has  learned  that 
Jesus  inaugurated  His  public  ministry  by  the  purification  of  the  temple, 
since  they  place  this  act  in  His  last  visit  to  Jerusalem.  Now  all  the  prob- 
abilities are  in  favor  of  the  time  assigned  to  this  fact  by  John.  Ileuss 
himself  acknowledges  it,  since  according  to  him,  if  Jesus  was  at  Jerusalem 
several  times  (a  fact  which  he  accepts),  it  is  almost  impossible  to  hold 
that  He  had  been  indifferent  the  first  time  to  that  which  on  a  later  occa- 
sion could  excite  His  holy  indignation.2 — It  is  certainly  not  from  the 
Synoptics  that  John  borrows  the  correction  which  he  brings  to  their  own 
story,  iii.  24,  by  recalling  the  fact  that  Jesus  and  His  forerunner  had 
baptized  simultaneously  in  Judea  at  the  beginning  of  the  Lord's  ministry, 
and  iv.  54  (comp.  i.  44  and  iv.  3),  by  clearly  distinguishing  between  the 
first  two  returns  of  Jesus  to  Galilee  which  are  blended  into  one  by  the 
Synoptic  narrative.  And  yet  every  one  is  obliged  to  admit  that  these  cor- 
rections are  well-founded  rectifications  and  in  harmony  with  the  actual 
course  of  the  history ;  for  (1)  if  Jesus  had  not  at  first  taught  publicly  in 
Judea,  the  imprisonment  of  John  the  Baptist  would  not  have  been  a 
reason  for  His  withdrawing  and  departing  again  for  Galilee  (Weizsacker) ; 

1 "  In  my  previous  works,  I  believed  myself  ion,  which  is  at  present  shared  even  by  those 

able  to  maintain  the  independence  of  the  who  in  other  respects  adopt  the  traditional 

fourth  Gospel  in  regard  to  the  Synoptic  text.  views."  (La  Thiologie  johannique,  p.  70.) 

1  am  obliged  to  go  over  to  the  opposite  opin-  *  P.  139. 


76  BOOK   II.      THE   GOSPEL. 

and  (2)  there  remains  a  manifest  gap  in  the  Synoptic  narrative  between 
the  baptism  of  Jesus  and  the  imprisonment  of  John  the  Baptist,  a  gap 
which  the  Johannean  narrative  exactly  fills  (Holtzmann). — Westcott  with 
perfect  fitness  says :  "  Matt.  iv.  12  and  Mark  i.  14  have  a  meaning  only  on 
the  supposition  of  a  Judean  ministry  of  Jesus,  which  these  books  have 
not  related." 

It  is  not  from  the  Synoptics  that  John  borrows  the  account  of  the  visits 
to  Jerusalem ;  here  is  the  -feature  which  most  profoundly  distinguishes 
his  narrative  from  theirs.  And  yet,  if  the  Johannean  narrative  possesses 
a  pronounced  character  of  superiority  to  the  other,  we  may  say  it  is 
certainly  in  this  point.  Keim  speaks  very  pathetically,  it  is  true,  of  these 
"  breathless  journeys  "  l  of  Jesus  to  Jerusalem  !  Nevertheless,  all  are  not 
agreed  on  this  subject.  Weiss  expresses  himself  thus :  "All  the  historical 
considerations  speak  in  favor  of  John's  narrative,  and  in  the  Synoptic 
narratives  themselves  there  are  not  wanting  indications  which  lead  to  this 
way  of  understanding  the  history."2  Kenan  himself  remarks  that 
"  persons  transplanted  only  a  few  days  before  [the  disciples,  on  the  suppo- 
sition that  they  also  had  not  previously  visited  Jerusalem]  would  not 
have  chosen  that  city  for  their  capital  ..."  And  he  adds,  "  If  things 
had  occurred  as  Mark  and  Matthew  would  have  it,  Christianity  would 
have  been  developed  especially  in  Galilee."  3  Hausrath  and  Holtzmann 
express  themselves  in  the  same  way.4  Without  pursuing  this  enumer- 
ation, let  us  limit  ourselves  to  quoting  Hase,  who,  in  a  few  lines,  appears 
to  u&  to  sum  up  the  question :  "  So  far  as  we  are  acquainted  with  the 
circumstances  of  the  time,  it  was  natural  that  Jesus  should  seek  to  obtain 
the  national  recognition  [of  His  Messianic  dignity]  at  the  very  centre  of 
the  life  of  the  people,  in  the  holy  city  ;  and  even  the  mortal  hatred  of  the 
priests  at  Jerusalem  would  be  more  difficult  to  explain,  if  Jesus  had  never 
threatened  them  near  at  hand.  But  it  is  very  natural  that  these  journeys 
to  Jerusalem,  in  so  far  as  they  are  chronological  determinations,  should  be 
effaced  in  the  Galilean  tradition  and  blended  in  the  single  and  last  journey 
which  led  Jesus  to  His  death.  In  the  Synoptic  Gospels  are  preserved  the 
traces  of  an  earlier  sojourn  of  Jesus  in  the  capital  and  its  neighborhood  : 
1  Jerusalem,  Jerusalem,  thou  that  killest  the  prophets  and  stonest  them 
that  are  sent  unto  thee,  how  often  would  I  have  gathered  thy  children 
together  as  a  hen  gathereth  her  chickens  under  her  wings  ;  and  ye  would 
not! '  "  This  sorrowful  exclamation  which  escaped  from  the  deepest  depths 
of  the  heart  of  Jesus,  finds  no  satisfactory  explanation  in  the  visit  of  a 
few  days  which  Jesus  made  in  that  city  according  to  the  Synoptics.  The 
explanation  of  Baur  is  a  subterfuge — he  thinks  that  the  children,  of  Jeru- 
salem are  taken  here  as  representatives  of  the  whole  people,  while  this 
exclamation  is  addressed  in  the  most  precise  and  local  way  to  Jerusalem 
itself;  as  also  it  is  a  mere  shift  of  Strauss  to  find  here  the  quotation  of  a 
passage  from  a  lost  work  ("  The  Wisdom  of  God  "), — a  passage  which,  in 

i "  Das  athemlose  Festreiseu."  «  Ncutest.  Zeitgesch.  I.,  p.  38C  ;    Gesch.  des 

*  Introd.,  p.  35.  Yolks  Israel,  II.,  pp.  372, 373. 

8  Vie  de  Jisus,  13th  ed.,  p.  487. 


CHARACTERISTICS — TIIE   FACTS.  77 

any  case,  could  have  been  thus  put  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus  only  as  the 
public  mind  remembered  more  than  one  visit  to  Jerusalem.  Moreover, 
according  to  the  Synoptics  also,  Jesus  has  hosts  at  Bethany,  to  whose 
house  he  returns  every  evening.  .  .  . "  *  Sabatier  calls  to  mind,  besides, 
the  owner  of  the  young  ass  at  Bethphage,  the  person  at  whose  house  Jesus 
caused  the  Passover  supper  to  be  prepared  at  Jerusalem,  Joseph  of 
Arimathea  who  goes  to  ask  for  His  body.  It  is  difficult  to  believe  that 
all  these  relations  of  Jesus  in  Judea  were  contracted  in  the  few  days  only 
which  preceded  the  Passion.  Finally,  let  us  not  forget  the  remarkable 
fact  that  Luke  himself  places  at  a  considerably  earlier  period  the  first 
visit  of  Jesus  at  the  house  of  Martha  and  Mary  (x.  38  ff.). 

Reuss  cannot  deny  the  weight  of  these  reasons.  While  continuing  to 
think  that  the  choice  of  this  theatre  was  dictated  to  the  author  "  by  the 
very  nature  of  the  antithesis,  the  antagonism  between  the  Gospel  and 
Judaism,"  that  it  is,  consequently,  the  theological  conception  which 
created  this  framework,  he  is  nevertheless  obliged  to  admit  "  that  there 
are  evident  traces  of  a  more  frequent  presence  of  Jesus  in  Jerusalem  " 
than  that  of  which  the  Synoptics  speak.  But  if  historical  truth  is  so 
evidently  on  the  side  of  John,  how  can  it  be  maintained,  on  the  other  hand, 
that  "it  is  to  the  theological  conception  that  this  framework  is  due?"2 

Reuss  is  likewise  led  by  the  facts  to  give  the  preference  to  the  chronolo- 
gical outline  of  John's  narrative,  which  assigns  to  the  ministry  of  Jesus  a 
duration  of  two  years  and  a  half,  and  not  of  a  single  year  only,  as  the 
Synoptic  narrative  seems  to  do.  "We  do  not  think,"  he  says,  "  that  it  can 
be  affirmed  that  Jesus  employed  only  a  single  year  of  His  life  in  acting 
upon  the  spirit  of  those  around  Him." 3  Weizsacker  makes  the  same 
observation  :  "  The  transformation  of  the  previous  ideas,  views  and  be- 
liefs of  the  apostles  must  have  penetrated  even  to  the  depths  of  their 
minds,  in  order  to  their  being  able  to  survive  the  final  catastrophe  and  to 
rise  anew  immediately  afterwards.  In  order  to  this,  the  schooling  of 
a  prolonged  intercourse  with  Jesus  was  necessary.  Neither  instructions 
nor  emotions  were  sufficient  here ;  there  was  necessity  of  growing  into 
the  inner  and  personal  union  with  the  Master." 4  Renan  also  declares 
that  the  mention  of  the  different  visits  of  Jesus  to  Jerusalem  (and,  conse- 
quently, of  His  two  or  three  years  of  ministry)  "  constitutes  for  our  Gos- 
pel a  decisive  triumph."  5  Here  is  no  secondary  detail  in  the  relation  of 
John  to  the  Synoptics.  It  is  the  capital  point.  How  can  it  be  maintained, 
after  such  avowals,  that  the  fourth  Gospel  is  dependent  on  its  predeces- 
sors? How  can  we  fail  to  recognize,  on  the  contrary,  the  complete  inde- 
pendence of  the  materials  of  which  it  disposes  and  their  decided  histor- 
ical superiority  to  the  tradition  recorded  in  the  Synoptics. 

In  the  account  of  the  last  evening,  the  first  two  Synoptics  divide  the 
sayings  of  Christ  into  three  groups  :  1.  The  revelation  of  the  betrayal  and 
the  betrayer;  2.  The  institution  of  the  Holy  Supper;  3.  The  personal 

»  Geschichte  Jcsu,  nach  acad.  Vorles,  p.  40.  4  Untcrsuchungen,  p.  313. 

2  Thiol,  johann.,  pp.  57-59.   .  6  P.  487. 

»P.  58. 


78  BOOK   II.      TIIE   GOSPEL. 

impressions  of  Jesus.  Luke  the  same,  but  in  the  inverse  order.  There 
are  always  three  distinct  groups  in  juxtaposition.  This  arrangement  was 
that  of  the  traditional  narration,  which  tended  to  group  the  homogeneous 
elements.  But  it  is  not  that  of  real  life  :  so  it  is  not  found  again  in  John. 
Here  the  Lord  reverts  several  times  both  to  the  betrayal  of  Judas  and  His 
own  impressions.  The  same  difference  is  seen  in  the  account  of  Peter's 
denial.  The  three  acts  of  denial  are  united  in  the  Synoptics  as  if  in  one 
place  and  time ;  this  narrative  was  one  of  the  aTro/jv7ifiov£vfj.aTa  (traditional 
stories),  which  formed  each  of  them  a  small,  complete  whole,  in  the  popu- 
lar narration.  In  John  we  do  not  find  these  three  acts  artificially  grouped ; 
they  are  divided  among  other  facts,  as  they  certainly  were  in  reality  ;  the 
narrative  has  found  again  its  natural  articulations.  This  characteristic 
has  not  escaped  the  sagacity  of  Penan,  who  expresses  himself  thus  :  "The 
same  superiority  in  the  account  of  Peter's  denials.  This  entire  episode 
in  the  case  of  our  author  is  more  circumstantial,  better  explained." 

We  know  that,  according  to  John's  account,  the  day  of  Christ's  death 
was  the  14th  of  Nisan,  the  day  of  the  preparation  of  the  Paschal  supper, 
and  not,  as  it  seems,  at  the  first  glance,  in  the  Synoptics,  the  15th,  the  day 
after  the  supper.  It  has  been  claimed  that  this  difference  arose  from  the 
fact  that  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  wished  to  make  the  time  of 
Jesus'  death  coincide  with  that  at  which  the  Paschal  lamb  was  sacrificed 
— a  ceremony  which  took  place  on  the  14th  in  the  afternoon  ;  and  this  in 
a  purely  dogmatic  and  typological  interest.  It  is  difficult  to  understand 
what  the  author  would  have  gained  by  making  so  violent  a  transposition 
of  the  central  fact  of  the  Gospel, — that  of  the  cross.  For,  after  all,  the 
typical  relation  between  the  sacrifice  of  the  lamb  and  the  crucifixion  of 
Christ  does  not  depend  on  the  simultaneousness  of  these  two  acts.  This 
relation  had  already  been  proclaimed  by  Paul  (1  Cor .  v.  7  :  "  Christ,  our 
Passover,  has  been  sacrificed  for  us");  it  was  recognized  by  the  whole 
Church,  on  the  ground  of  the  sacramental  words :  "  Do  this  in  remem- 
brance of  me,"  by  which  Jesus  substituted  Himself  for  the  Paschal  lamb. 
It  is  easier,  on  the  other  hand,  to  understand  the  loss  which  the  author 
risked  by  subjecting  the  history  to  an  alteration  of  this  kind;  he  compro- 
mised in  the  Church  the  authority  of  his  work  and  thereby  (to  put  our- 
selves, at  the  point  of  view  of  those  who  give  this  explanation)  even  that 
of  his  conception  of  the  Logos,  which,  moreover,  had  nothing  to  do  with 
typological  and  Judaic  symbolism,  and  was  even  contrary  to  it.  But  more 
than  this,  we  shall  show,  and  that  by  the  Synoptics  themselves,  that  the 
Johannean  date  is  the  true  one.  Reuss  cannot  help  admitting  this,  with 
ourselves,  for  the  same  reasons  (the  facts  indicated  Mark  xiv.  21,  46  and 
parallels,  which  could  not  have  occurred  on  a  Sabbatical  day,  such  as  the 
15th  of  Nisan  was).1  Here  also,  accordingly,  it  is  John's  account  which 
brings  to  light  again  the  true  course  of  things,  left  in  obscurity  by  the 
Synoptic  narrative. 

We  shall  not  enter  into  the  detailed  study  of  the  accounts  of  the  Passion 

*  Seo  Thiol,  johann.,  p.  00. 


CHARACTERISTICS — THE   FACTS.  79 

and  resurrection.  I  may  limit  myself  to  quoting  this  general  judgment 
of  Renan  respecting  the  last  days  of  Jesus'  life :  "  In  all  this  portion,  the 
fourth  Gospel  contains  particular  points  of  information  infinitely  superior 
to  those  of  the  Synoptics."  And  with  relation  to  the  fact  of  the  resur- 
rection of  Lazarus,  he  adds:  "Now — a  singular  fact — this  narrative  is 
connected  with  the  last  pages  [of  the  Gospel  history]  by  such  close  bonds 
that,  if  we  reject  it  as  imaginary,  the  entire  edifice  of  the  last  weeks  of 
Jesus'  life,  so  solid  in  our  Gospel,  crumbles  at  the  same  blow." *  And,  in 
fact,  all  things  in  the  Johannean  narrative  are  historically  bound  together : 
the  resurrection  of  Lazarus  determines  the  ovation  of  Palm  Sunday ;  and 
this,  joined  with  the  treason  of  Judas,  constrains  the  Sanhedrim  to  pre- 
cipitate the  denouement. 

It  is  true  that  Hilgenfeld  regards  this  explanation  of  the  relation  be- 
tween John  and  the  Synoptics  as  "  a  degrading  of  these  last,  they  being 
nothing  more  than  defective  beginnings,  of  which  John's  work  would  be 
the  censor."  "  Reuss  several  times  expresses  the  same  idea  :  "  A  singular 
way  of  strengthening  the  faith  of  the  Christian — by  suggesting  the  idea 
that  what  he  may  have  previously  read  in  Matthew  or  in  Luke  has  great 
need  to  be  corrected." 3  But  to  complete,  is  to  confirm  that  which  pre- 
cedes and  that  which  follows  the  gap  which  is  filled  up ;  and  to  correct 
an  inaccuracy  of  detail  in  a  narrative  is  not  to  unsettle  the  authority  of 
the  whole — it  is,  on  the  contrary,  to  strengthen  it.  The  corrections  and 
complements  brought  by  John  to  the  Synoptic  story  have  been  noticed 
since  the  first  ages  of  the  Church,  but  they  have  not  in  the  least  impaired 
the  confidence  which  the  Church  has  had  in  those  writings. 

We  now  have  the  necessary  elements  for  resolving  these  two  questions : 
Is  the  fourth  Gospel,  in  the  truth  which  it  relates,  dependent  on  the  Syn- 
optics ?  In  the  points  where  he  differs  from  them,  does  the  author  mod- 
ify the  history  according  to  a  preconceived  and  favorite  theory  ? 

As  to  the  first  question,  the  facts,  as  rigidly  examined,  have  just  proved 
that  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  possesses  a  source  of  information 
independent  of  the  Synoptic  tradition.  The  negative  solution  of  the 
second  follows  plainly  from  the  fact  that  in  case  of  a  difference  in  the  two 
narrations,  it  is,  in  every  instance,  the  Johannean  narrative  which,  from 
the  historical  point  of  view,  deserves  the  preference.  A  narrative  which  is 
constantly  superior,  historically  speaking,  is  secure  from  the  suspicion  of 
being  the  product  of  an  idea. 

What  is  urged  in  opposition  to  this  result  from  facts,  which  are  for  the 
most  part  conceded  by  the  objectors  themselves?  It  is  claimed,  in  spite 
of  all,  that  there  are  found  in  the  Johannean  narrative  certain  traces  of 
dependence  on  the  Synoptic  narrative.  Holtzmann  has  exercised  his 
critical  adroitness  in  this  domain.  The  following  are  some  of  his  discov- 
eries.4 John  says  i.  6:  "There  was  a  man"  (iyevero  hvdpunoc:)."  It  is  an 
imitation  of:  "There  came  a  word  (kyfoero  /»?//«),"  Luke  iii.  2.  John  says 
(i.  7):  "This  one  came;"  he  copies  the:  "And  he  came,"  Luke  iii.  3. 

i  P.  514.  » P.  32. 

a  Zeitsch.  fiir  wisscnsch.  TheoL,  I.,  1880.  *  Zeitschr.  fur  wissensch.  Theol.,  1869.    J 


80  BOOK   II.      THE  GOSPEL. 

The  expression  :  "  Lazarus  our  friend  sleepeth  "  (John  xi.  11),  reproduces 
that  of  Mark  v.  39  and  parallels  :  "  She  is  not  dead,  but  sleepeth  "  (although 
Mark's  term  KaOevdei  is  different  from  John's,  KSKoifMjTai).    The  sickness  of 
Lazarus  (John  xi.)  is  a  copy  of  the  representation  of  Lazarus  covered  with 
sores  in  the  parable  of  Luke  xvi.  20,  and  the  whole  account  of  the  resur- 
rection of  Lazarus  of  Bethany  is  only  a  fiction  created  after  that  parable 
of  the  wicked  rich  man.     According  to  Eenan,  the  reverse  is  the  case. 
The  two  assertions  are  of  equal  value.     In  Luke,  Abraham  refuses,  as  a 
useless  thing,  to  send  back  Lazarus  who  is  dead  to  the  earth ;  in  John, 
Jesus  brings  him  back  among  the  living :  what  an  imitation !     It  is  claimed 
also,  from  this  point  of  view,  that  the  representation  of  Martha  and  Mary, 
chap,  xi.,  is  an  imitation  of  that  in  Luke  x.  38  ff. ;  or  that  the  two  hundred 
denarii  of  Philip  (vi.  7)  are  derived  from  the  text  of  Mark  vi.  37,  as  the  three 
hundred  of  Judas  (xii.  5)  are  borrowed  from  the  text  of  Mark  xiv.  5;  or 
again  that  the  strange  term  vapdog  manny  (pure  nard,  trustworthy)  in  John 
(xii.  3)  comes  from  Mark  (xiv.  3).    The  comparison  of  the  three  accounts 
of  the  anointing  of  Jesus  at  Bethany  has  produced  on  Reuss  so  great  an 
impression,  that  it  has  decided  his  conversion  to  the  view  of  dependence, 
maintained  by  Holtzmann.1     According  to  him,  indeed,  two  different 
anointings  are  related  by  the  Synoptics  ;  that  which  took  place  in  Galilee 
by  the  hands  of  a  sinful  woman,  in  the  house  of  Simon  the  Pharisee  (Luke 
vii.),  and  that  which  took  place  at  Bethany  on  the  part  of  a  woman  of  that 
place,  in  the  house  of  Simon  the  leper  (Matt.  xxvi. ;  Mark  xiv.).     "  Well," 
says  Reuss,  "the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  gives  us  a  third  version," 
which  can  only  be  understood  as  an  amalgam  of  the  other  two.     He  puts 
into  the  mouth  of  Jesus  the  same  words  as  the  narrative  of  Mark  does. 
And  at  the  same  time  he  borrows  from  Luke  this  characteristic  detail, — 
that  the  oil  was  not  poured  on  His  head  (Mark  and  Matt.),  but  on  His 
feet.     Moreover,  he  thinks  it  good  to  deviate  from  the  account  of  the  first 
two  Synoptics  by  transferring  the  scene  from  the  house  of  Simon  the  leper 
to  that  of  Lazarus,  who  has  recently  been  raised  from  the  dead.     The  truth 
is :  1.  That  John  relates  exactly  the  same  scene  as  Mark  and  Matthew ;  but 
2.  That  he  relates  it  with  more  precise  details  ;  and  3.  Without  contradicting 
them  in  the  least  degree.   He  is  more  precise :  he  indicates  exactly  the  day  of 
the  supper ;  it  is  that  of  the  arrival  of  Jesus  at  Bethany  from  Jericho,  the 
evening  before  Palm  Sunday ;  m  Matthew  and  Mark  all  chronological  de- 
termination is  wanting.     He  mentions  the  anointing  of  the  feet,  that  of  the 
head  being  understood  as  a  matter  of  course,  since  it  was  an  act  of  ordi- 
nary civility  (comp.  Ps.  xxiii.  5 ;  Luke  vii.  46),  while  anointing  the  feet  with 
a  like  perfume  was  a  prodigality  altogether  extraordinary.     It  was  pre- 
cisely this  exceptional  fact  which  occasioned  the  murmuring  of  certain 
disciples  and  the  following  conversation.     Then,  John  alone  mentions  Ju- 
das as  the  fomenter  of  the  discontent  which  manifested  itself  among  some 
of  his  colleagues.     Matthew  and  Mark  employ  here  only  vague  terms:  the 
disciples;  some.    But  these  Gospels  themselves,  by  the  place  which  they 

1  Thiol,  johann.,  p.  76,  note.     ., 


CHARACTERISTICS — THE   FACTS.  81 

assign  to  this  story — making  it  an  intercalation  and,  as  it  were,  an  episode 
in  that  of  the  treachery  of  Judas  (oomp.  Mark  xiv.  1,  2  and  10,  11,  and  the 
parallels  in  Matt.),  indirectly  bear  testimony  to  the  accuracy  of  this  more 
precise  detail  of  John's  narrative.  Tradition  had  assigned  this  place  to  the 
story  of  the  anointing  precisely  because  of  the  part  of  Judas  on  this  occa- 
sion, which  was  as  if  the  prelude  to  his  treachery.  It  was  an  association 
of  ideas  for  which  John  substitutes  the  true  chronological  situation. 
Finally,  John's  narrative  does  not,  by  any  means,  contradict  the  parallel 
narrative  of  the  two  Synoptics  as  to  the  house  in  which  the  supper  took 
place.  For  the  expression  :  "And  Lazarus  was  one  of  those  who  were  at 
table  with  him"  (in  John), — far  from  proving  that  the  feast  took  place 
in  the  house  of  Lazarus, — is  the  indication  of  exactly  the  opposite.  It 
would  not  have  been  necessary  to  say  that  Lazarus  was  at  table  in  his  own 
house,  and  that  Martha  served  there.  There  remains  the  identical  detail 
of  the  three  hundred  denarii  and  the  common  term  ■klg-tlkt].  There  would 
be  no  impossibility  surely  in  the  fact  that,  having  the  narrative  of  Mark 
under  his  eyes,  John  should  have  borrowed  from  it  such  slight  details;  his 
general  historical  independence  would,  nevertheless,  remain  intact.  But 
these  borrowings  are  themselves  doubtful ;  for  1.  John's  narrative  possesses, 
as  we  have  seen,  details  whieh  are  altogether  original ;  2.  The  term  ttkt-ik^ 
was  a  technical  term,  which  was  used  in  contrast  with  the  similarly  tech- 
nical one,  pscudo-nard  (see  Pliny)  ;  3.  The  two  numbers,  being  certainly  his- 
torical, might  be  transmitted  in  two  accounts  which  were  independent  of 
each  other.  Moreover,  in  the  narrative  of  the  multiplication  of  the  loaves, 
the  parts  ascribed  to  Philip  and  Andrew  betray  in  John  the  same  inde- 
pendence of  information  which  we  have  just  proved  in  that  of  the  anoint- 
ing in  Bethany. 

We  come  to  the  solution  of  the  second  question,  the  most  decisive 
question  :  whether  the  philosophical  idea  of  the  Logos,  which  is  believed 
to  be  the  soul  of  the  narrative,  has  not  exerted  an  unfavorable  influence 
on  the  setting  forth  of  the  facts,  and  whether  it  is  not  to  this  influence 
that  we  must  attribute  most  of  the  differences  which  we  notice  between 
this  narrative  of  the  history  of  Jesus  and  that  of  the  three  Synoptics. 

The  facts  which  we  have  just  proved  contain,  in  a  general  way,  the 
answer  to  this  question.  If  in  the  cases  of  divergence  previously  examined, 
we  have  established,  in  every  instance,  the  incontrovertible  historical 
superiority  of  John's  narrative,  what  follows  from  this  fact?  That  the 
author  had  too  much  respect  for  the  history  which  he  was  relating,  to 
permit  the  idea  which  inspired  him  to  be  prejudicial  to  the  faithful  state- 
ment of  the  facts,  or  that  this  governing  idea,  belonging  to  the  history  itself, 
moved  over  the  narrative,  not  as  a  cause  of  alteration,  but  as  a  salutary 
and  conservative  rule. 

Let  us,  however,  enter  into  details  and  take  notice  of  the  particu- 
lar divergences  which  arc  cited  as  specimens  of  the  unfavorable  effect  of 
the  theological  standpoint.  The  question  is  either  of  facts  omitted,  or  of 
narratives  rpprntcd,  with  or  without  modifications,  or  finally  of  features 
added,  by  the  Johannean  story. 
6 


82  BOOK   II.      THE   GOSPEL. 

There  are  three  facts,  especially,  the  omission  of  which  seems  to  several 
critics  significant, — the  temptation,  the  institution  of  the  Holy  Supper, 
and  the  agony  in  Gethscmane.  The  first  and  third  of  these  facts,  it  is 
thought,  appeared  to  the  author  unworthy  of  the  Logos ;  as  for  the 
second,  it  was  enough  for  him,  from  his  spiritualistic  point  of  view,  to 
have  unveiled  the  essence  of  it  in  the  discourse  of  chap.  vi. ;  after  that, 
the  outward  ceremony  had  no  more  value  to  his  view.  Does  he  not 
proceed  in  the  same  way  with  respect  to  the  baptism  ?  He  does  not,  any 
more  than  in  the  former  case,  give  an  account  of  its  institution,  but  he  sets 
forth  its  essence,  iii.  5.  We  believe  that  John's  silence  respecting  these 
two  facts  is  to  be  explained  in  quite  a  different  way.  If  the  author  was 
afraid  to  compromise  the  dignity  of  the  Logos  by  placing  Him  in  conflict 
with  the  invisible  adversary,  would  he  make  Him  say,  xiv.  30:  "I  will  no 
longer  talk  much  with  you,  for  the  prince  of  the  world  cometh  ?  "  It 
must  not  be  forgotten  that  the  starting-point  of  John's  narrative  is  later 
than  the  fact  of  the  temptation.  It  is  the  same  with  the  baptism  of  Jesus, 
which  is  also  not  related,  but  which  the  author  does  not  dream  of  deny- 
ing, since  he  distinctly  alludes  to  it  in  the  saying  attributed  to  John  the 
Baptist,  i.  32 :  "  I  have  seen  the  Spirit  descending  from  heaven  like  a 
dove  and  abiding  upon  him."  The  scene  of  Gethscmane  is  omitted  ;  but 
it  is  sufficiently  indicated  by  that  statement,  which  is  really  a  reference  to 
the  Synoptical  narratives,  xviii.  1 :  "After  that  Jesus  had  said  these  things, 
he  went  forth  with  his  disciples  beyond  the  brook  Ceclron,  tvhere  there  tvas 
a  garden  into  which  he  entered,  himself  and  his  disciples*'  John  takes  pre- 
cisely the  same  course  here  as  he  does  with  relation  to  the  great  session 
of  the  Sanhedrim',  at  which  Jesus  was  condemned  to  death  ;  that  scene, 
which  is  necessarily  presupposed  by  the  appearance  before  Pilate,  he 
nevertheless  does  not  relate,  but  contents  himself  with  indicating  it  by 
the  words,  xviii.  24,  "  And  Annas  sent  him  bound  to  Caiaphas,  the  high- 
priest"  (comp.  also  the  words  "to  Annas  first,"  ver.  13).  This  tacit  refer- 
ence to  the  Synoptics  belongs  to  John's  mode  of  narrating.  Limiting 
himself  to  a  delicate  hint,  which  should  serve  as  a  nota  bene,  he  passes 
over  the  points  with  which  he  knows  his  readers  to  be  sufficiently  well 
acquainted.  If  he  was  afraid  of  compromising  the  dignity  of  the  Logos, 
how  should  he  have  related  in  chap,  xii.,  in  a  scene  which  he  alone  has 
preserved  from  oblivion,  tbat  iriward  struggle,  the  secret  of  which  Jesus 
did  not  fear  to  betray  to  the  people  who  were  about  him,  ver.  27  :  "  And 
now  is  my  soul  troubled  ;  and  what  shall  I  say  ?  "  How  should  he  make 
Him  weep  at  the  tomb  of  Lazarus  (xi.  35)  and  represent  him  as  troubled 
in  His  spirit  in  the  presence  of  the  traitor  (xiii.  21)  ?  The  omission  of  tbe 
institution  of  the  Holy  Supper  is  no  less  easily  explained.  John  was  not 
writing  the  Gospel  for  neophytes ;  he  was  relating  his  story  in  the  midst 
of  Churches  which  had  been  long  since  founded,  and  in  which  the  Holy 
Supper  was  probably  celebrated  every  week.  Far  from  wishing  to  describe 
the  ministry  of  Jesus  in  its  entireness,  he  set  forth  the  manifestations  in 
acts  and  words  which  had  especially  contributed  to  the  end  of  revealing 
to  himself  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God ;  comp.  xx.  30,  31.    Now,  this  aim 


CHARACTERISTICS — THE   FACTS.  83 

did  not  oblige  him  to  take  particular  notice  of  the  institution  of  the 
Supper  ;  and  as  this  ceremony  was  sufficiently  well-known  and  universally 
celebrated,  he  could  omit  the  institution  of  it  without  detriment.  No 
more  does  he  give  an  account  of  the  institution  of  baptism,  although  he 
makes  an  allusion  to  it  in  iii.  5  and  iv.  12. 

Three  examples  ought  to  show  to  a  cautious  criticism  how  much  it 
needs  to  be  on  its  guard,  when  the  question  is  of  drawing  from  omissions 
like  these  conclusions  as  to  the  hidden  intentions  of  the  author.  He 
omits  the  story  of  the  selection  of  the  twelve  apostles ;  is  this  in  order  to 
disparage  them?  But  he  himself  puts  in  the  mouth  of  Jesus  (vi.  70)  this 
word:  "Have  not  I  chosen  you,  the  twelve?"  Let  us  suppose  that  this 
declaration  were  not  found  there,  what  consequences  would  not  an  im- 
passioned criticism  draw  from  the  omission?  The  fourth  Gospel  does 
not  give  an  account  of  the  ascension  ;  does  it  mean  to  deny  it?  But  in 
vi.  02,  we  find  these  words  in  the  mouth  of  Jesus :  "  How  will  it  be,  when 
you  shall  see  the  Son  of  man  ascending  where  he  was  before  V  The  ground 
of  the  omission  is,  very  simpl}-,  the  fact  that  the  close  of  the  narrative, 
the  scene  connected  with  Thomas,  is  anterior  to  this  event,  which,  besides, 
was  suited  in  the  best  possible  way  to  the  idea  of  the  Logos.  If  there 
was  in  the  Synoptics  a  fact  fitted  to  be  used  to  advantage  in  behalf  of  this 
theory,  it  was,  certainly,  that  of  the  transfiguration.  Very  well !  it  is 
omitted,  no  less  than  the  scene  of  Gethsemane.  Such  examples  should 
suffice  to  bring  criticism  back  from  the  false  path  in  which  it  has  been 
wandering  for  the  last  forty  years,  and  into  which  it  is  drawing  after  itself 
an  immense  public  who  blindly  swear  according  to  it. 

But  we  are  arrested  in  our  course  here.  If  the  author  of  the  fourth 
Gospel,  they  say  to  us,  really  proposed  to  himself  to  complete  the  two 
others,  why  does  he  relate  a  certain  number  of  facts  already  reported  by 
them  :  for  example,  the  expulsion  of  the  dealers  and  the  multiplication 
of  the  loaves,  the  anointing  by  Mary  at  Bethany  and  the  entrance  into 
Jerusalem  on  Palm  Sunday  ? 

We  have  already  said :  the  author  does  not  write  for  the  purpose  of 
completing.  He  proposes  to  himself  a  more  elevated  aim,  which  he 
himself  points  out  in  xx.  30,  31.  But  in  these  same  verses  he  also  defines 
his  method,  which  consists  in  selecting,  among  the  things  already  written 
or  not  yet  written,  that  which  best  suited  the  end  which  he  is  pursuing  : 
to  give  the  grounds  of  his  faith  in  Christ  the  Son  of  God,  in  order  to  the 
reproduction  of  the  same  faith  in  his  readers :  "  Jesus  did  many  other 
signs  .  .  .  which  are  not  written  in  this  book ;  but  these  are  written  in  order 
tJmt  .  .  ."  This  mode  of  selecting  implies  omissions — we  have  remarked 
them — but  it  also  authorizes  repetitions,  on  every  occasion  when  the 
author  judges  them  necessary  or  even  useful  to  his  purpose. 

Thus  the  driving  out  of  the  dealers  (chap,  ii.)  is  related  anew  by  him, 
because  he  knows  that  it  played,  in  the  ministry  of  Jesus  and  in  the 
development  of  the  national  unbelief,  a  much  more  serious  part  than  that 
which  was  attributed  to  it  in  the  Synoptical  narrative.  The1  latter,  by 
placing  this  fact  at  the  end  of  Jesus'  ministry,  prevented  it  from  being 


84  BOOK   II.      THE   GOSPEL. 

looked  upon  as  the  bold  measure  by  which  Jesus  had  called  His  people 
to  join  themselves  with  Him  in  beginning  the  spiritual  reform  of  the 
theocracy ;  the  refusal  of  the  people  and  their  rulers  on  that  occasion 
ceased  thus  to  be  the  first  step  in  the  path  of  resistance  and  rejection. 

The  multiplication  of  the  loaves  (chap,  vi.)  appeared  in  the  Synoptics 
only  as  one  among  the  numerous  miracles  of  Jesus.  The  important 
part  appertaining  to  the  crisis  in  the  history  of  Jewish  unbelief  which 
resulted  from  this  fact,  was  in  them  almost  completely  effaced.  It  is  this 
side  of  the  event  which  John  restores  to  full  light.  He  shows  the  carnal 
and  political  character  of  the  Galilean  enthusiasm,  which  desires,  on  this 
occasion,  to  proclaim  the  royalty  of  Jesus,  and  which,  immediately  after- 
wards, is  offended  at  the  declarations  by  which  He  refuses  to  promise  to 
His  own  anything  else  than  the  satisfaction  of  spiritual  hunger  and 
thirst.  At  the  same  time,  the  fact  thus  presented  becomes  a  very  con- 
spicuous landmark  in  the  history  of  faith,  by  displaying  the  contrast 
between  the  abandoning  of  Jesus  by  the  greater  part  of  His  former  dis- 
ciples and  the  energetic  profession  of  St.  Peter  :  "  To  whom  else  shall  we 
go  .  .  .  ?    Thou  art  the  Holy  One  of  God." 

The  story  of  the  anointing  at  Bethany  (chap,  xii.,  1  ff.)  is,  on  the  one  side, 
connected  with  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus,  which  has  just  been  related 
in  the  preceding  chapter,  and,  on  the  other,  with  the  treachery  of  Judas 
which  is  to  play  so  important  a  part  in  the  picture  of  the  last  supper. 
This  twofold  connection  did  not  appear  in  the  Synoptics,  who  gave  no 
account  of  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus,  and  who,  by  substituting  for  the 
name  of  Judas  the  vague  expressions:  some  (Mark),  the  disciples  (Matt.), 
prevented  the  c6nnection  between  this  malevolent  manifestation  and  the 
monstrous  act  which  was  about  to  follow  from  being  perceived. 

The  entrance  into  Jerusalem  (xii.  12  ff.)  is  related  so  summarily  by  John 
that  it  is  really  nothing  but  a  complement  of  the  Synoptic  narrative. 
Thus,  when  he  says :  "  Having  found  a  young  ass,"  and  when  he  adds 
that,  after  the  ascension,  "the  disciples  remembered  that  these  things 
were  written  and  that  they  had  done  these  things,"  while  in  his  own  narra- 
tive they  have  done  nothing  at  all  to  Him,  it  is  evident  that,  for  the  com- 
plete picture  of  the  scene,  he  refers  to  other  narratives  already  known. 
Only  he  is  obliged  to  recall  the  fact  to  mind,  in  order  to  present  it,  on  the 
one  hand;  as  the  effect  of  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus  (vv.  17,  18),  and,  on 
the  other,  as  the  cause  which  forced  the  Sanhedrim  to  precipitate  the 
execution  of  the  judgment  already  given  against  Jesus  (ver.  19). 

We  can  easily  see,  therefore,  how  these  narratives  are,  not  useless  repe- 
titions, but  essential  features  in  the  general  picture  which  the  author  pro- 
poses to  himself  to  trace.  Take  away  these,  and  you  have,  not  merely  a 
simple  omission,  but  a  rent  in  the  very  texture  of  the  narrative. 

It  remains  for  us  to  consider  a  last  class  of  facts  in  which  it  is  believed 
that  one  may  detect,  in  a  peculiarly  sensible  way,  the  influence  exerted 
upon  the  narrative  by  the  dogmatic  conception  which  filled  the  mind  of 
its  author.  These  are  the  facts  and  particular  features  which  John  adds 
to  the  narrative  of  his  predecessors. 


CHARACTERISTICS — THE  FACTS.  85 

One  of  the  features  which  most  profoundly  distinguish  this  Gospel  from 
the  preceding  ones  is,  certainly,  the  chronological  framework  traced  out 
above.  The  question  is,  whether  this  framework  is  a  product  of  the  idea, 
or  whether  it  belongs  to  the  actual  history.  We  have  already  shown  that, 
by  the  admission  of  Reuss,  the  second  answer  is  the  true  one.  What 
significance  would  it  have,  moreover,  for  the  idea  of  the  Logos  that  the 
ministry  of  Jesus  continued  for  one  year,  or  for  two  years  and  more? — 
that  He  taught  and  baptized  during  a  first  year  in  Judea,  before  establish- 
ing Himself  in  Galilee,  as  John  relates,  or,  on  the  contrary,  that  He  betook 
Himself  to  that  country  immediately  after  His  baptism  by  the  forerunner, 
as  appears  to  be  indicated  by  the  Synoptics  (Matt.  iv.  12  and  parallels)  ?  It 
seems  rather,  that  the  shorter  the  sojourn  of  the  Logos  on  the  earth  was, 
the  more  magnificently  does  the  power  of  the  work  accomplished  by  Him 
shine  forth. — Or  again,  those  large  intervals,  entirely  destitute  of  facts, 
which  extend  from  one  to  three,  or  even  six  months,— are  they  to  be  con- 
sidered pure  inventions  of  the  author  for  the  benefit  of  the  Logos  theory  ? 
But  with  justice,  Sabatier  asks,  "if  the  author  had  invented  this  frame- 
work, how  should  he  have  neglected  to  fill  it  out?"  (p.  1S8).  Reuss  thinks 
he  cites  a  decisive  fact  against  the  historical  tendency  of  the  Johannean 
narration,  when  he  says  :  "A  single  fact  fills  an  entire  season  vi.  4-vii.  2."1 
But  how  is  it  that  he  does  not  see  that  this  almost  total  silence  of  the 
author  respecting  the  contents  of  these  six  entire  months,  between  the 
Passover  and  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  is  the  unanswerable  proof  that  he 
has  not  invented  "  this  season  "  with  a  speculative  end  in  view,  and  that 
he  mentions  it  only  with  a  truly  historical  purpose. 

It  is  in  the  fact  of  the  visits  to  Jerusalem  that  the  influence  of  the  idea 
on  the  Johannean  narration  can,  as  it  is  thought,  be  most  clearly  proved. 
The  great  conflict  between  the  light  and  the  darkness  demanded  the 
capital  as  its  theatre.  But  those  who  reason  thus,  are  themselves  forced  to 
recognize  in  these  visits  to  Jerusalem  related  by  John,  an  indispensable 
element  of  the  history — a  factor  without  which  neither  the  tragical  catas- 
trophe at  Jerusalem,  nor  the  foundation  of  the  Church  in  this  same  city, 
can  be  understood  (see  pages  76,  77).  These  visits  are  not,  then,  a  pro- 
duct of  the  idea.  All  that  can  be  claimed  is  that  they  have  been  chosen 
and  made  prominent  by  the  author  as  the  principal  object  of  his  narra- 
tive, because  he  has  judged  them  particularly  fitted  to  bring  out  the 
principal  idea  of  his  work.  Let  us  add  here,  however,  that  this  idea  is,  by 
no  means,  a  metaphysical  notion,  like  that  of  the  Logos,  but  the  fact  of 
the  development  of  faith  and  of  unbelief  towards  Jesus  Christ.  Moreover, 
to  this  ideal  explanation  of  the  visits  to  Jerusalem,  Sabatier  rightly  opposes 
the  narrative  of  chap.  vi. :  "  We  may  well  be  surprised,"  he  says,  "  to  see 
beginning  in  Galilee,  in  the  synagogue  at  Capernaum,  the  crisis  whose 
denouement  is  to  come  in  Jerusalem.  We  cannot  explain  such  partial 
annulling  of  the  system  " — we  say,  for  ourselves :  of  the  alleged  system — 
"  of  the  author,  except  by  the  very  distinct  recollection  which  he  had 
of  the  Galilean  crisis." 

*P.  23. 


86  BOOK  II.      THE  GOSPEL. 

At  this  point  there  arises,  undoubtedly,  a  difficult  question — the  most 
obscure  of  all  those  which  are  connected  with  the  relation  between  John 
and  the  Synoptics:  that  of  the  omission  of  the  visits  to  Jerusalem  in  the 
latter.  We  have  seen  that  their  whole  narrative  supposes  these  visits  and 
requires  them ;  how  is  it  that  they  give  no  account  of  them  ?  This 
strange  omission  seems  to  us  explicable  only  by  means  of  these  two  facts : 
one,  that  our  three  Synoptics  are  the  redaction  of  the  popular  tradition 
which  took  form  at  Jerusalem  after  the  day  of  Pentecost;  the  other, that 
this  tradition  had,  from  the  beginning,  left  these  visits  in  the  background 
for  some  reason  which  can  only  be  conjectured.  As  we  have  seen  that 
the  various  allusions  to  the  treachery  of  Judas  during  the  last  supper 
(John  xiii.)  were  blended  into  one  in  the  traditional  and  Synoptic  story, 
and  that  the  narrative  of  John  is  necessary  in  order  to  restore  them  to 
their  true  places ;  that,  in  the  same  way,  the  story  of  the  denials  of  Peter, 
which,  in  the  Synoptics,  form  a  single  and  unbroken  cycle,  has  found 
again  in  John's  Gospel  its  natural  articulation — so  a  similar  fact  probably 
occurred  with  reference  to  the  journeys  to  Jerusalem.  In  the  popular 
narration,  they  all  came  to  be  mingled  together  in  that  last  journey — the 
only  one  which  really  told  decisively  on  the  history  of  the  Messianic  work, 
and  which  consequently  remained  in  the  tradition.  We  readily  notice,  in 
studying  the  three  accounts  of  the  Galilean  ministry  in  the  Synoptics,  that 
they  are  divided  into  certain  groups  or  cycles,  each  containing  the  same 
series  of  stories ;  what  Lachmann  has  called  the  corpuscula  kistorix  evan- 
gelicx.  The  journeys  to  Jerusalem  did  not  fall  within  any  of  these 
groups.  And  when  the  evangelical  tradition  thus  divided  and  grouped 
was  committed  to  writing,  these  journeys  remained  in  the  shade.  The 
very  contents  of  the  discourses  which  Jesus  had  spoken  in  the  capital 
might,  likewise,  contribute  to  this  omission  in  the  ordinary  proclaiming  of 
the  Gospel.  It  was  not  easy  to  reproduce  for  the  Jewish  and  Gentile  mul- 
titudes who  heard  of  the  Gospel  for  the  first  time,  discourses  such  as  that 
of  the  fifth  chapter  of  St.  John,  on  the  dependence  of  the  Son  as  related 
to  the  Father,  and  on  the  various  testimonies  which  the  Father  bears  to 
the  Son  ;  or  discussions  such  as  those  which  are  reported  in  chaps,  vii.  and 
viii.,  where  Jesus  can  no  longer  say  a  word  without  being  interrupted  by 
evil-minded  hearers.  The  discourse  of  chap,  vi.held  in  Galilee,  could  not 
be  reproduced. for  the  same  reason,  while  the  fact  of  the  multiplication  of 
the  loaves,  which  had  given  occasion  to  it,  remained  in  the  tradition.  How 
much  easier,  more  natural  and  more  immediately  useful  it  was  to  repro- 
duce varied  scenes,  like  those  of  the  Galilean  life,  or  moral  discourses  and 
conversations,  like  the  parables  or  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  ?  For  all 
these  reasons,  or  for  some  other  besides  these  which  is  unknown  to  us,  this 
important  part  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus  was  omitted  in  the  tradition  and 
also,  afterwards,  in  our  Synoptics.  But,  as  Hase  so  well  says,  "  as  it  was  in 
the  natural  order  of  things  that  those  who,  like  Luke,  desired  to  describe 
tbe  life  of  Jesus  without  having  lived  with  Him,  should  keep  to  that  which 
was  published  and  believed  in  the  Church  respecting  that  life; — so  it  was 
natural  also  that,  if  an  intimate  disciple  of  the  Lord  came  to  undertake 


CHARACTERISTICS — THE  FACTS.  87 

this  work,  he  should  keep  much  less  to  the  common  matter  which  had 
heen  accidentally  and  involuntarily  reduced  to  form,  than  to  his  own 
recollections.  Then,  such  a  man  was  less  bound  by  pious  regard  for  that 
sacred  tradition;  for  he  was  also  himself  a  living  source  of  it.  I  am  not 
at  all  surprised,  therefore,  that  a  Johannean  Gospel,  in  its  high  originality, 
deviates  from  that  common  matter ;  much  rather,  if  a  Gospel  published 
under  the  name  of  this  disciple  did  nothing  but  repeat  that  collective  in- 
heritance, and  did  not  differ  from  it  more  than  the  Synoptics  differ  from 
one  another,  should  I  in  that  case  doubt  the  authenticity  of  that  Gospel."  * 

An  objection  is  also  derived  from  the  miraculous  works,  to  the  number 
of  seven,  which  are  related  in  our  Gospel ;  it  bears  upon  these  four  points  : 
1.  These  works  have  a  more  marvelous  character  even  than  those  of  the 
Synoptics ;  2.  They  are  presented  as  manifestations  of  the  glory  of  the 
Logos,  and  no  longer  as  the  simple  effects  of  the  compassion  of  Jesus;  3. 
Several  of  these  miracles  are  omitted  by  the  Synoptics — a  fact  which,  by 
reason  even  of  their  extraordinary  greatness,  renders  them  more  suspi- 
cious ;  4.  No  casting  out  of  a  demon  is  mentioned. 

1.  We  think  that  it  would  be  difficult  to  say  wherein  the  change  of  the 
water  into  wine  at  Cana,  chap,  ii.,  is  more  extraordinary  than  the  multi- 
plication of  the  loaves  and  fishes,  related  by  our  four  gospels  alike.  Is  it 
more  marvelous  to  transform  the  qualities  of  matter,  than  to  produce  it  ? 
Has  not  the  latter  act  a  greater  analogy  to  the  creative  act  ? — If,  in  the 
healing  of  the  son  of  the  royal  officer,  chap,  iv.,  the  miracle  is  wrought  at 
a  distance,  the  fact  is  not  otherwise  in  the  case  of  the  servant  of  the  cen* 
turion  at  Capernaum,  Matt,  viii.,  and  in  that  of  the  daughter  of  the 
Canaanitish  woman,  Matt.  xv. — The  impotent  man  of  Bethesda,  John  v., 
was  sick  for  thirty-eight  years  :  but  what  do  we  know  of  the  time  during 
which  the  impotent  man,  whose  healing  the  Synoptics  relate  with  circum- 
stantial particularity,  was  paralyzed? — If  in  the  story  of  the  walking  on 
the  water,  John  vi.,  the  bark  reaches  the  shore  immediately  after  the  ar- 
rival of  Jesus,  the  story  in  Matthew  presents  a  no  less  extraordinary  de- 
tail— the  person  of  Peter  made  to  participate  in  the  miracle  accomplished 
in  the  person  of  Jesus. — Two  miracles  remain  in  which  the  narrative  of 
John  appears  to  go  beyond  the  analogous  facts  related  by  the  Synoptics  : 
the  healing  of  the  one  born  blind,  chap,  ix.,  and  the  resurrection  of  Laz- 
arus, who  had  been  dead  four  days.  By  these  two  altogether  peculiar  cir- 
cumstances, the  author  proposed,  it  is  said,  to  glorify  the  Logos  in  an 
extraordinary  way. — But  how  can  we  make  such  an  intention  accord  with 
several  sayings  which  the  same  author  puts  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus,  and 
in  which  the  value  of  miracles,  as  a  means  of  laying  a  foundation  for 
belief,  is  expressly  combated  or  at  least  depreciated.  "  Unless  ye  see 
wonders  and  signs,  ye  will  not  believe  "  (iv.  48) :  it  is  with  this  reproach 
that  Jesus  receives  the  request  of  the  royal  officer.     "If  ye  believe  not  me, 


1  Geschichte  Jew,  pp.  39,  40.  Let  us  remark  selves,  we  are  as  yet  treating  only  that  of  the 
that  Hase,  in  this  passage,  is  discussing  the  historical  or  speculative  character  of  out 
question  of  the  authenticity.    As  for  our-       narrative. 


gg  BOOK   II.      THE   GOSPEL. 

at  least  believe  the  works "  (x.  3S) ;  comp.  also  xiv.  11.  And  yet  the 
author  who  has  preserved  such  declarations  of  Jesus,  the  authenticity  and 
elevated  spirituality  of  which  every  one  recognizes,  makes  himself  the 
flatterer  of  the  grossest  religious  materialism,  by  inventing  new  miracles 
and  giving  them  a  more  wonderful  character  ! 

2.  Is  it  true  that  our  Gospel  forms  a  contrast  with  the  Synoptics,  in  the 
fact  that  the  latter  present  the  miracles  as  works  of  compassion,  while  in 
the  former  they  are  the  signs  of  the  glory  of  the  Logos  ?— But  let  us  ob- 
serve, first  of  all,  that  in  the  Gospel  of  John  the  miracles  are  not  even 
ascribed  to  the  power  of  Jesus.  It  is  one  of  the  characteristic  features  of 
this  work,  that  it  makes'the  miracles,  so  far  as  Jesus  is  concerned,  acts  of 
prayer,  while  the  operative  power  is  ascribed  to  the  Father  alone.  "  I  can 
do  nothing  of  myself,"  says  Jesus,  v.  30,  after  the  healing  of  the  impotent 
man.  "  The  works  which  God  has  given  me  to  do,  these  works  testify  for 
me,"  He  adds,  ver.  36.  The  miracles  are  an  attestation  of  the  Father  only 
because  it  is  the  Father  who  accomplishes  them  on  His  behalf.  In  xi.  41, 
42,  Jesus  says  publicly,  before  the  grave  of  Lazarus :  "  Father,  I  thank 
thee  that  thou  hast  heard  me  .  .  . ;  I  know  that  thou  hearest  me  ahvays." 
He  must  therefore  ask,  beg  for  His  miracles,  as  one  of  us  might  do ;  and 
is  it  claimed  that  these  acts  are  the  glorification  of  His  own  divine  power? 
No  doubt,  it  is  also  said,  ii.  11,  after  the  miracle  at  Cana,  that  "  he  mani- 
fested his  glory,"  and  xi.  4,  that  "  the  sickness  of  Lazarus  is  for  the  glory 
of  God,"— then  it  is  added :  "  in  order  that  the  Son  of  God  may  be  glori- 
fied thereby."  If  this  glory  is  not  that  which  He  derives  from  His  own 
power,  what  can  it  be?  Evidently  that  which  results  from  His  compas- 
sion manifested  in  His  prayer,  as  the  glory  of  the  Father  results  from  His 
love  manifested  by  hearing  it.  Here,  indeed,  is  the  glory  "  full  of  grace 
and  truth,"  of  which  the  author  himself  spoke  in  i.  14.  It  is,  therefore, 
very  easy  to  escape  from  the  antithesis  which  Reuss  establishes  between 
the  miracles  of  compassion  (in  the  Synoptics)  and  those  of  revelation  and 
of  personal  glorification  (in  St.  John).  The  glory  of  the  Son  in  the  latter 
consists  precisely  in  obtaining  from  the  Father  that  which  His  compassion 
asks  for.  How,  for  example,  is  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus  introduced 
in  our  Gospel?  By  those  words  which  overflow  with  tenderness,  and 
which  have  nothing  like  them  in  the  Synoptics :  "And  Jesus  loved  Martha 
and  her  sister  and  Lazarus  "  (xi.  5).  In  order  to  apprehend  completely 
the  manner  in  which  the  miracles  are  presented  in  our  Gospel,  it  must, 
indeed,  be  considered  that  the  true  aim  of  these  acts  passed  far  beyond  the 
relief  of  the  suffering  being  who  was  the  object  of  them.  If  Jesus  was 
moved  only  by  compassion  for  individual  suffering,  why,  instead  of  giving 
sight  to  a  few  blind  persons  only,  did  He  not  exterminate  blindness  from 
the  world  ?  Why,  instead  of  raising  two  or  three  dead  persons,  did  He 
I  not  annihilate  death  itself?  He  did  not  do  it,  although  His  compassion 
.  would  certainly  have  impelled  Him  to  it.  It  was  because  the  suppression 
I  of  suffering  and  death  is  a  blessing  for  humanity  only  as  a  corollary  of  the 
I  destruction  of  sin.  The  latter  must,  therefore,  precede  the  former ;  and 
the  miracles  were  signs,  intended  to  manifest  Jesus  as  the  one  by  whom  sin 


CHARACTERISTICS — THE  FACTS.  89 

first,  and  then  suffering  and  death,  are  to  he  one  day  radically  extermi- 
nated. As  collective  love  for  humanity  does  not  exclude  compassion 
towards  a  particular  individual,  so  the  notion  of  miracles  in  John  does  not 
exclude  the  Synoptic  point  of  view,  but  includes  it,  while  subordinating 
it  to  a  more  general  point  of  view. 

3.  But  how  docs  it  happen  that  of  the  seven  miracles  related  by  John, 
five  are  omitted  in  the  previous  Gospels.  That  of  Cana  naturally  fell  out 
with  the  first  year  of  the  ministry  which  they  omitted.  That  of  Bethesda 
and  that  of  the  man  who  was  born  blind  are  omitted  with  the  visits  to 
Jerusalem  of  which  they  form  a  part.  That  of  the  son  of  the  royal  officer 
had  nothing  peculiarly  striking  in  it  and  had  its  counterpart  in  a  miracle 
which  is  related  by  the  Synoptics,  that  of  the  healing  of  the  centurion's 
servant,  which  many  even  identify — wrongly,  in  our  view — with  the  mir- 
acle reported  by  John. 

The  omission  of  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus  in  the  Synoptics  is  the 
most  difficult  fact  to  explain.  It  is  not  enough  to  say  that  the  miracle 
took  place  in  Judea;  for  at  the  time  when  it  occurred  the  Synoptics  pre- 
sent the  Lord  to  us  as  sojourning  in  Perea  and  in  the  southern  districts. 
We  have  only  one  explanation :  tradition  remained  silent  with  respect  to 
this  fact  through  consideration  for  Lazarus  and  his  two  sisters.  This 
family  lived  within  a  stone's  throw  of  Jerusalem  and  was  thus  exposed  to 
the  hostile  stroke  of  the  Sanhedrim.  We  read  in  John  xii.  10  that  "  the 
chief  priests  took  counsel  that  they  might  put  Lazarus  also  to  death  " 
together  with  Jesus,  because  of  the  influence  which  the  sight  of  this  man 
who  had  been  raised  from  the  dead  was  exerting  upon  the  numerous  pil- 
grims arriving  at  the  capital.  The  case  might  have  been  precisely  the 
same  after  the  day  of  Pentecost ;  and  it  is  probable  that  it  was  found  pru- 
dent, fortius  reason,  to  pass  over  this  fact  in  silence  in  the  traditional  Gos- 
pel story.  Either  the  names  of  Martha  and  Mary,  in  the  story  of  the 
anointing  (see  Mark  and  Matthew),  or  the  name  of  Bethany,  when  the 
two  sisters  were  designated  by  their  names  (see  the  account  of  Luke  x. 
38),  were  likewise  omitted.  It  was,  undoubtedly,  for  a  similar  reason  that, 
in  the  account  of  the  arrest  of  Jesus  in  Gethsemane,  the  name  of  the  dis- 
ciple who  drew  the  sword  was  suppressed  in  the  tradition  (see  the  three 
Synoptical  narratives),  while  it  is  mentioned  without  scruple  by  John, 
who  wrote  at  a  time  when  no  harm  could  any  longer  come  to  Peter  from 
this  precise  indication.  Objection  is  made,  it  is  true,  that  the  Synoptic 
narratives  were  drawn  up  after  the  death  of  Peter,  and  after  that  of  the 
members  of  the  Bethany  family ;  to  what  purpose,  then,  these  precau- 
tions (see  Meyer)  ?  But  we  too,  do  not,  by  any  means,  ascribe  these  pre- 
cautions to  the  authors  of  these  works;  we  ascribe  them  to  the  Gospel 
tradition,  formed  at  Jerusalem  from  the  days  which,  followed  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost. We  see  from  the  account  of  the  ill  treatment  to  which  the  Sanhe- 
drim subjected  the  apostles,  from  the  martyrdom  of  Stephen  and  of 
James,  and  from  the  persecutions  of  which  Saul  became  the  instrument, 
that,  at  that  time,  the  power  of  the  enemies  of  Jesus  was  still  unimpaired, 
and  that  it  was  exercised  in  the  most  violent  manner.    Their  hatred  went 


90  BOOK   II.      THE  GOSPEL. 

on  increasing  with  the  progress  of  the  Church ;  and  there  must  have  been 
an  apprehension,  that  if  any  one  should  put  publicly  on  the  scene  those 
who  had  played  a  part  in  that  history,  he  would  make  them  pay  very 
dearly  for  such  an  honor.  John,  who  composed  his  work  at  a  time  when 
there  was  no  longer  any  Sanhedrim  or  Jewish  people  or  temple,  and  who 
wrote  under  the  sway,  not  of  tradition,  but  of  his  own  recollections,  could, 
without  fear,  re-establish  the  facts  in  their  integrity.  This  is  the  reason 
why  he  designates  Peter  as  the  author  of  tfie  blow  which  was  given  in  the 
scene  in  Gethsemane,  while  at  the  same  time,  at  the  suggestion  of  this 
name,  he  calls  to  mind  that  of  Malchus,  the  one  who  was  injured ;  this  is 
the  reason  why  he  gives  himself  up  to  the  happiness  of  tracing  in  all  its 
details  the  wonderful  scene  of  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus. 

4.  We  shall  not  dwell  long  upon  the  omission  of  the  cures  of  demoniacs. 
Does  not  the  author  himself  say  that  there  are  also  in  the  history  of 
Jesus  numerous  miracles,  different  from  those  which  he  has  mentioned 
(xx.  30:  7roMa  Kal  a/Cka  arj/uEia)?  Does  not  Jesus  speak,  xiv.  30,  of  "  the 
prince  of  this  world  coming  to  Him  "  ?  There  would  be  nothing,  there- 
fore, to  prevent  the  evangelist  from  speaking  of  the  victories  of  Jesus  over 
his  demoniacal  agents.  Cases  of  possession  are  mentioned  only  rarely  in 
Greek  countries  (Acts  xvi.,  xvii.).    They  were  less  known  there. 

The  want  of  historical  character,  which  criticism  charges  against  the 
accounts  of  miracles  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  it  discovers  again  in  the  person- 
ages whom  this  book  brings  on  the  stage.  They  are  not,  it  claims,  living 
beings,  but  mere  types.  Nicodemus  is  the  personification  of  learned 
Pharisaism.  ".We  see  him  come,  but  we  do  not  see  him  go  away  ;"  this 
is  a  favorite  observation  of  Reuss ;  it  passes  from  one  of  his  works  to 
another.  He  adds  :  "  In  any  case  there  is  no  more  question  as  to  him." 
Finally,  he  asserts  that  the  reply  made  by  Jesus  to  this  nocturnal  visitor 
"  ends  in  a  theoretical  exposition  of  the  Gospel,"  and,  consequently,  is  not 
at  all  addressed  to  him.  The  same  estimate  of  the  Samaritan  woman,  in 
chap.  iv. ;  in  this  woman  is  simply  personified  "  the  artless  and  confident 
faith  of  the  poor  in  spirit."  And  the  same  also  of  the  Greeks  of  chap, 
xii. :  they  represent  heathenism  yearning  for  salvation.  What  meaning, 
indeed,  would  the  mediation  of  Philip  and  Andrew  have,  to  which  they 
have  recourse,  and  which  was,  by  no  means,  necessary  in  the  presence  of 
a  being  whom  every  one  could  freely  approach?  These  are,  then,  ideal 
figures,  as  suits  the  essential  character  of  a  book  which  is  nothing  but  a 
treatise  on  theology.1 

Reuss  would  wish,  no  doubt,  that  the  account  of  the  conversation  with 
Nicodemus  had  been  followed  by  this  remark  :  And  Nicodemus  returned 
to  his  house.  The  narrator  has  not  considered  this  detail  necessary.  He 
has  judged  it  more  useful  to  relate  to  us,  in  chap,  vii.,  that,  in  a  full  session 
of  the  Sanhedrim,  this  same  senator,  who  at  the  beginning  came  to  Jesus 
by  night,  had  the  courage  to  take  up  His  defense  and  to  expose  himself  to 
insult  from  his  colleagues.    He  has  also  preferred  to  show  us,  on  the  day 

1  Reuss,  pp.  14, 15. 


CHARACTERISTICS — THE   FACTS.  91 

of  deepest  darkness,  when  the  most  intimate  friends  of  Jesus  were  despair- 
ing of  Him  and  His  work,  tins  same  man  offering  to  His  dead  body  at  the 
foot  of  the  cross  a  royal  homage,  and  publicly  making  known  his  faith  in 
Him,  in  whom  he  recognized,  at  that  hour,  the  true  brazen  serpent  lifted 
up  for  the  salvation  of  the  world;  comp.  John  iii.  14,  15.  Here,  it  seems, 
are  features  which  attest  the  reality  of  a  man,  and  in  presence  of  which  it 
ought  riot  to  be  said:  "In  any  case  there  is  no  more  question  as  to  him." 
It  is  also  wholly  false  to  call  the  end  of  the  conversation  of  Jesus  with  him, 
in  chap,  iii.,  "  a  theoretical  exposition  of  the  Gospel ;  "  for  every  word  of 
Jesus  sets  a  feature  of  the  true  Messianic  programme  in  direct  opposition 
to  the  false  Pharisaic  programme  which  Nicodemus  brought  with  him : 
The  Messiah  must  be  lifted  up  like  the  brazen  serpent;  which  means :  and 
not  like  a  new  Solomon.  God  so  loved  the  world :  and  not  only  the  Jews. 
The  Son  is  come  to  save  :  and  not  to  judge  the  uncircumcised.  The  one 
who  is  condemned  is  whoever  does  not  believe :  and  not  the  Gentile  as 
such.  The  one  who  is  saved  is  whoever  believes  :  but  not  the  Jew  as  such.  I 
Through  the  addition  of  this  last  word :  "  He  who  does  the  truth  comes  to 
the  light,"  it  is  very  clear,  for  every  one  who  puts  himself  in  the  situation, 
that  Jesus  makes  an  encouraging  allusion  to  the  step  which  Nieodemus 
had  taken ;  there  is  here  a  farewell  full  of  kindness  which  is  a  guaranty 
for  his  future  progress.  Everything  in  this  story,  therefore,  from  the  first 
word  to  the  last,  applies  personally  to  Him.  Is  it  possible  to  picture  to 
oneself  a  scene  more  real  and  life-like  than  that  at  Jacob's  well  ?  That  fa- 
tigue of  Jesus  carried  to  the  extreme,  even  to  exhaustion  (ne/ionianus);  that 
malicious  observation  of  the  woman  :  "  How  dost  thou  ask  drink  of  me, 
who  am  a  Samaritan  woman  ?  "  that  water-pot  which  she  leaves  and  which 
remains  there  as  a  pledge  of  her  speedy  return  ;  those  Samaritans  hasten- 
ing towards  Jesus,  whose  eagerness  makes  upon  Him  the  impression  of  a 
harvest  already  ripening,  after  a  sowing  which  has  just  taken  place  at  that 
very  moment ;  that  sower  who  rejoices  to  see,  once  in  His  life  at  least,  His 
labor  ending  in  the  harvest  feast,  those  people  of  Sychar  who  so  artlessly 
attest  the  difference  between  their  first  act  of  faith,  founded  solely  on  the 
woman's  story,  and  their  present  faith,  the  fruit  of  their  contact  with  Jesus 
Himself .  .  .  What  a  painter  is  made  of  our  author  by  attributing  to  his 
creative  imagination  such  words,  such  a  picture? — Can  we  say  that  the 
Greeks  were  really  lost  from  sight  in  the  answer  which  Jesus  makes  to  the 
communication  of  Philip  and  Andrew?  But  to  whom,  then,  does  that 
expression  of  xii.  32  apply  :  "  When  I  shall  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  I 
will  draw  all  men  unto  me?"  Our  Lord  means:  My  teaching  and  my 
miracles  will  not  suffice  to  extend  the  Kingdom  of  God  over  the  earth  and 
to  make  all  peoples  enter  into  it;  my  elevation  upon  the  cross  will  be 
needed,  followed  by  my  elevation  to  the  throne.  Then  only,  "  after  it  shall 
have  been  cast  into  the  earth,  will  the  grain  of  seed  bear  much  fruit  (ver. 
24)."  Then  only  will  it  be  possible  for  the  great  fact  of  the  fall  of  Satan's 
power  and  of  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles  to  be  accomplished,  which 
cannot  yet  at  this  moment  be  realized.  The  answer  of  Jesus,  therefore,  is 
equivalent,  in  its  meaning,  to   that  which  He  gave  to  the  Canaanitish 


92  BOOK   II.      THE  GOSPEL. 

woman :  "lam  not  sent  (during  my  earthly  career),  except  to  the  lost 
sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel."  It  matters  little  to  us,  after  this,  to  know 
whether  the  Greeks  were  admitted  or  not  to  a  few  moments  of  conversa- 
tion with  the  Lord.  It  was  the  moral  situation  in  itself  and  its  gravity  for 
Israel  and  for  the  world,  which  the  narrator  wished  to  describe,  as  Jesus 
Himself  had  so  solemnly  characterized  it  on  that  occasion ;  and  what 
proves  that  it  is,  indeed,  Jesus  who  spoke  in  this  way,  is  the  following  pic- 
ture of  the  profound  emotion  which  this  first  contact  with  the  Gentile 
world  produces  in  Him  :  "  And  now  is  my  soul  troubled  ;  and  what  shall 
I  say?  Father,  save  me  from  this  hour?  But  for  this  cause  came  I  unto 
this  hour."  Most  certainly  it  may  be  said : — here  are  words  which  were 
not  invented,  and  which,  in  any  case,  were  not  invented  in  the  interest  of 
the  Logos-theory!  Now  if  these  words  are  historical,  the  entire  scene 
cannot  be  otherwise.  As  for  the  mediation  of  Philip  and  Andrew,  it  is 
in  truth  more  difficult  to  comprehend  the  objection,  than  to  solve  it. 

After  having  given  an  account  of  the  difficulties  which  have  been  raised, 
we  ourselves  proceed  to  raise  some  against  this  ideal  explanation  of  the 
Johannean  narrative.  The  historical  differences  between  this  Gospel  and 
the  preceding  ones  arise,  it  is  said,  from  the  influence  exerted  by  the  Logos 
theory  which  this  work  is  designed  to  set  forth.  But  a  mass  of  details  in 
John's  narration  are  either  wholly  foreign  or  even  opposed  to  this  alleged 
intention. 

We  ask  of  what  interest,  from  the  point  of  view  indicated,  can  be  that 
tenth  hour  so  expressly  mentioned  in  i.  40,  or  that  first  sojourn  of  Jesus  in 
Capernaum,  indicated  in  ii.  12,  but  of  which  the  author  does  not  tell  us  the 
least  detail;  wherein  is  it  of  advantage  to  the  Logos  idea  to  mention,  viii. 
20,  that  the  place  where  Jesus  spoke  was  the  place  called  the  Treasury  of 
the  temple,  or  x.  23,  that  "it  was  winter  "  and  that  "Jesus  was  walking  in 
Solomon's  porch ;  "  or,  xi.  54,  that  after  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus,  Jesus 
withdrew  to  a  place  named  Ephraim  and  near  the  desert,  without  our 
learning  anything  of  what  He  did  and  said  there.  What  does  the  Logos 
idea  gain  from  our  knowing  that  the  name  of  the  servant  whose  right  ear 
Peter  cut  off  was  called  Malchus,  and  that  he  was  the  brother  of  a  servant 
of  the  high  priest ;  that  it  was  the  apostle  Andrew  who  discovered  the 
small  lad  carrying  the  two  barley-loaves  and  the  five  fishes  ;  or  that  the 
disciples  had  already  gone  twenty-five  furlongs  when  Jesus  overtook  them 
on  the  sea  (vi.  IS,  19) ;  or  that  in  the  scene  at  the  tomb  John  moved  more 
quickly  than  Peter,  but  Peter  was  more  courageous  than  John;  that  it 
was  Philip  who  said:  "Show  us  the  Father;"  Thomas  who  asked: 
"  Make  known  to  us  the  way ;  "  Judas,  "  not  Iscariot,"  who  wished  to 
know  why  Jesus  would  reveal  Himself  only  to  believers  and  not  to  the 
world  (chap,  xiv.)?  Is  it  fictitious  realism  which  the  author  here  indulges 
in  as  he  introduces  these  names,  these  numbers,  these  minute  details,  or 
does  he  attach  to  them  some  symbolic  meaning  in  connection  with  the 
theory  of  the  Logos  ?  The  seriousness  of  the  work  does  not  allow  the  first 
explanation,  common  sense  excludes  the  second. 

More  than  this :  a  multitude  of  details  in  the  narrative  are  in  open  contra- 


CHARACTERISTICS — THE   DISCOURSES.  93 

diction  to  the  notion  of  the  Logos  as  it  is  ascribed  to  our  author.  The 
Logos  wearied  and  thirsty  !  The  Logos  remaining  in  Galilee  in  order  to 
escape  the  death  with  which  He  is  threatened  at  Jerusalem,  and  going  to 
that  city  only  secretly!  The  Logos  agitated  in  His  soul  and  even  in  I  lis 
spirit, — then,  beginning  to  weep;  praying  and,  at  a  given  moment,  troubled 
even  to  the  point  of  not  knowing  how  to  pray !  It  is  easy  to  see  that  in  no  one 
of  our  Gospels  is  the  truly  human  side  of  Jesus'  person  so  earnestly  empha- 
sized as  in  the  story  of  the  fourth.  If  the  theme  of  the  narrative  is  contained 
in  these  words  :  "  The  Word  was  made  flesh,-'  the  predicate  in  this  propo- 
sition is  made  prominent  in  the  narrative  at  least  as  much  as  the  subject. 

But  let  us  suppose,  in  spite  of  so  many  details  which  are  foreign  or 
contradictory  to  the  philosophical  notion  of  the  Logos,  that  the  intention 
of  the  author  was  to  proclaim  this  new  thesis  and  to  win  over  the  Church 
to  it :  what  advantage  was  there  for  this  end  in  introducing  into  the  gen- 
erally received  narrative  modifications  which  could  only  render  the  whole 
work  suspicious  ?  Why  create,  in  some  sort  as  a  whole,  a  new  history  of  our 
Lord's  life,  while  it  was  so  easy  for  him,  as  is  shown  by  the  discourse  which 
follows  the  account  of  the  multiplication  of  the  loaves  (chap,  vi.),  to  connect 
his  favorite  theory  with  the  facts  already  known  and  everywhere  admitted. 

Finally,  can  we,  without  an  insurmountable  psychological  contradic- 
tion, hold  either  that  the  author  believed  his  own  fictions  so  far  as  to 
amalgamate  them  in  one  and  the  same  narrative  with  the  facts  which  were 
most  sacred  to  him — those  of  the  Passion  and  resurrection, — or  that,  not 
himself  believing  them,  he  presented  them  to  his  readers  as  real,  with  the 
purpose  of  strengthening  and  developing  their  faith  (xx.  30,  31)  ?  In  par- 
ticular, can  we  conceive  that  he  founded  on  these  miracles,  invented  by 
himself,  the  grand  indictment  which  he  draws  up,  in  closing  the  part  from, 
v.  to  xii.,  against  Jewish  unbelief:  "Although  he  had  done  so  many  signs 
before  them,  they  believed  not  on  him,  that  the  word  of  Isaiah  the  pro- 
phet might  be  fulfilled  .  .  ."  (xii.  37,  38).  And  yet  he  who  wrote  thus 
knew  perfectly  that  these  signs,  in  the  name  of  which  he  condemns  his 
people,  had  never  occurred !     We  reach  here  the  limits  of  folly. 

Thus  more  and  more  men  like  Weizsiicker,  Hase  and  Rcnan  feel  them- 
selves obliged  to  recognize  in  the  fourth  Gospel  a  real  and  considerable 
historical  basis.  They  stop  at  the  half-way  point,  no  doubt ;  but  the  pub- 
lic consciousness  will  not  rest  there.  The  purely  and  simply  historical 
character  of  the  entire  work  will  impress  itself  upon  that  consciousness, 
as  soon  as  the  present  crisis  shall  have  passed  ;  and  we  await  with  confi- 
dence the  moment  when  reparation  will  be  made  to  the  narrative  which 
we  have  just  been  studying.  This,  as  has  been  seen,  will  not  be  the  first 
retractation  which  it  will  have  wrested  from  science. 

III.  The  Discourses. 

But  if  the  narrative  of  the  facts  has  not  been  altered  by  reason  of  the 
speculative  idea,  can  the  same  thing  be  affirmed  of  the  other  part — and  it 
is  the  more  considerable  part — of  our  Gospel,  namely,  the  Discourses  which 


94  BOOK   II.      THE  GOSPEL. 

it  puts  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus  ?  According  to  the  opinion  of  Baur,  these 
discourses  are  only  the  evolution  of  the  Logos  idea  presented  in  its 
various  aspects.  Reuss  thinks  that  the  author  takes  for  his  starting  point 
certain  authentic  utterances  of  Jesus,  but  that  he  freely  amplifies  them, 
by  giving  them  developments  borrowed  from  his  own  Christian  experience. 
In  favor  of  this  view,  the  glaring  improbabilities  are  alleged,  which  are 
observed  in  the  account  given  of  most  of  these  discourses;  the  singular 
conformity  of  thought  and  style  between  the  way  in  which  the  author 
makes  Jesus  speak  and  the  language  which  he  ascribes  to  the  forerunner, 
or  his  own  language  in  the  prologue  and  in  his  epistle ;  finally,  and 
especially,  the  complete  contrast  in  matter  and  form  which  exists  between 
the  discourses  of  Jesus  in  our  Gospel  and  His  teaching  in  the  Synoptics. 

In  order  to  treat  this  important  subject  thoroughly,  we  shall  study  the 
following  three  questions : 

1.  Are  the  discourses  of  Jesus  in  this  Gospel  to  be  regarded  as  simple 
variations  of  the  speculative  theme  which  is  placed  by  the  author  at  the 
beginning  of  his  book  ?  Or,  on  the  contrary,  must  we  regard  the  prologue 
as  a  summing  up,  a  quintessence,  of  the  history  and  the  teachings  related 
in  the  following  narrative  ? 

2.  Do  the  alleged  difficulties  render  the  historical  character  of  the  dis- 
courses inadmissible  ? 

3.  Can  we  rise  to  such  a  conception  of  the  person  of  Jesus  that  the 
Johannean  teaching  shall  flow  from  it  as  naturally  as  the  Synoptic 
preaching  ? 

A.  The  relation  of  the  prologue  to  the  discourses  and  the  narrative  in  general. 

Let  us  determine,  in  the  first  place,  the  true  import  of  what  is  called 
the  theorem  of  the  Logos.  It  is  claimed  that,  in  thus  opening  his  book, 
the  author  places  the  reader,  not  on  the  ground  of  history,  but  on  that  of 
philosophical  speculation.1  This  assertion  can  be  sustained  only  on  one 
condition,  that  of  restricting  the  prologue,  as  Reuss,  and  he  alone,  does, 
to  the  first  five  verses.  As  soon  as  we  extend  it,  as  the  sequel  forces  us  to 
do,  as  far  as  ver.  18,  we  see  that  the  author's  thought  is  not  to  teach  that 
there  is  in  God  a  Logos — in  this,  indeed,  there  would  be  a  speculative 
theorem — hut  that  this  Logos,'  this  divine  being,  has  appeared  in  Jesus 
Christ — which  is  not  a  philosophical  idea,  but  a  fact,  an  element  of  history, 
at  least  as  the  author  understood  it.  And  in  fact  John  the  Baptist,  vv. 
6-9,  does  not  testify  of  the  existence  of  the  Logos,  but  of  this  historical 
fact :  that  in  Jesus  the  true  divine  light  has  been  manifested.  John  does 
not  say,  ver.  11,  that  the  fault  of  the  Jews  consisted  in  refusing  to  believe 
in  the  existence  of  a  Logos,  but  in  not  receiving,  as  their  Messiah,  this 
divine  being  when  he  had  appeared  in  Jesus.  The  blessedness  of  the 
Church  (vv.  14-18)  does  not,  according  to  him,  flow  from  the  fact  that  it 
has  believed  in  the  theorem  of  the  Logos,  but  from  the  fact  that  it  has 
received  Him  and  that  it  possesses  Him,  in  Jesus  Christ,  as  the  Son,  the 

i  Reuss,  p.  11. 


CHARACTERISTICS — THE  DISCOURSES.  95 

source  of  grace  and  truth.  The  question  in  the  prologue,  therefore,  is 
only  of  what  Jesus  is,  the  one  whose  history  the  author  is  about  to  relate. 
The  tendency  of  this  preamble  is  historical  and  religious,  not  metaphysical. 

But  more  than  this:  the  true  notion  of  the  person  of  Jesus  is  in  itself 
only  one  of  the  essential  ideas  of  the  prologue.  This  passage  contains 
two  other  ideas,  which  are  no  less  important,  and  which  belong  still  more 
manifestly  to  history.  They  are  that  of  the  rejection  of  Jesus  by  the 
Jews  (ver.  11)  :  "  He  came  to  his  own,  and  his  own  received  him  not " — ■ 
unbelief,  with  its  consequence,  perdition, — and  that  of  the  faith  of  the 
Church  (ver.  16)  :  "  And  of  his  fullness  have  we  all  received,  grace  upon 
grace" — the  happiness  and  salvation  of  all  believers,  Jews  and  Gentiles. 
These  two  ideas  are  not  metaphysical  notions ;  they  are,  no  less  than  the 
appearance  of  Christ,  real  facts,  which  the  author  had  seen  accomplished 
under  his  own  eyes,  and  which  he  proposed  to  himself  to  trace  out  in  his 
history.  He  contemplated  them  as  realized,  at  the  very  moment  when  he 
was  writing,  so  soon  as  he  cast  a  glance  on  the  world  which  surrounded 
him.  Let  us  not  be  told,  then,  of  "  abstract  formulas  placed  at  the  begin- 
ning of  this  book,  as  a  kind  of  programme  ! '  It  is  the  essence  of  the 
history  itself  which  he  is  about  to  trace  out,  that  the  author  sums  up  by 
way  of  anticipation  in  this  preamble. 

There  is,  to  his  view,  such  a  correlation  between  the  Gospel  history 
which  is  to  follow  and  the  prologue,  that  the  course  of  the  latter  has 
exactly  determined  the  plan  of  the  former.  The  narrative  presents  to  us 
three  facts  which  are  developed  simultaneously  :  the  growing  revelation 
of  Jesus  as  the  Christ  and  the  Son  of  God  (xx.  30,  31) ;  the  refusal  of  the 
Jewish  nation,  as  such,  to  accept  this  revelation ;  and  the  faith  of  a 
certain  number  of  individuals  in  these  testimonies,  consisting  in  acts  and 
words.  This  course  of  the  history  is  found  again  exactly  in  that  of  the 
prologue :  vv.  1-5,  the  Logos ;  vv.  6-11,  the  Logos  rejected  ;  vv.  12-18,  the 
Logos  received.  Now,  who  could  hesitate  for  an  instant  as  to  the 
question  whether  the  history  was  invented  according  to  this  plan,  or 
whether  this  plan  was  conceived  and  traced  out  according  to  the  history? 

Let  us  remark,  also,  that  the  discourses  of  Jesus  were  one  of  the  most 
important  factors  in  the  development  of  the  history.  What  in  a  war  the 
successive  battles  are  which  bring  final  victory  or  defeat,  this  same  thing 
in  the  ministry  of  Jesus  were  those  solemn  encounters  in  which  the  Lord 
bore  testimony  of  the  work  which  God  had  just  accomplished  through 
Him,  or  in  which  there  Avas  formed  in  the  people,  on  one  side,  that  aver- 
sion and  hatred,  on  the  other,  that  sympathy  and  devotion  which  decided 
the  result  of  His  coming.  If  it  is  so,  how  could  the  discourses  of  Jesus 
which  are  related  by  the  author  be  to  his  view  only  free  theological  com- 
positions? Truly  as  the  double  result  indicated  by  the  prologue,  the  rejec- 
tion by  Israel  and  the  foundation  of  the  Church,  are  real  facts,  so  truly 
must  the  discourses  of  Jesus,  which  so  powerfully  contributed  to  lead  the 
history  to  this  two-fold  end,  be  facts  no  less  real  to  his  view. 

1  Reuss,  p.  11. 


96  BOOK   II.      THE  GOSPEL. 

Finally,  there  is  a  quite  singular  and  often  noticed  fact,  which  is  abso- 
lutely  opposed  to  the  view  that  the  discourses  of  Jesus  in  our  Gospel  are 
to  be  regarded  as  the  developments  of  a  speculative  theory  peculiar  to  the 
author;  it  is  that  the  term  Logos,  or  Word,  which  characterizes  the  pro- 
logue so  strikingly,  docs  not  in  a  single  instance  figure,  as  taken  in  the 
same  sense,  in  the  discourses  of  Jesus.  The  expression  word  of  God  is 
frequently  employed  in  them  to  designate  the  contents  of  the  divine  reve- 
lation. There  was  only  onestep  more  to  be  taken  in  order  to  apply  this 
term  to  the  revealer  himself,  as  in  the  prologue.  The  author  has  not 
yielded  to  this  temptation.  He  might  have  had,  more  than  once,  occasion 
to  make  Jesus  speak  thus,  particularly  in  the  conversation  of  x.  33  ff. 
The  Jews  accuse  the  Lord  of  blaspheming,  because,  being  a  man,  lie  makes 
Himself  God.  He  replies  to  them  that,  in  the  Old  Testament  itself,  the 
theocratic  judges  receive  the  title  of  gods;  comp.  Ps.  lxxii.  6:  "I  have 
said,  ye  are  gods."  It  was  in  these  terms  that  the  Psalmist  addressed  him- 
self to  the  members  of  the  Israelitish  tribunal,  as  organs  of  the  divine 
justice  here  below.  From  these  words  Jesus  draws  the  following  argu- 
ment :  If  the  Scripture,  which  cannot  blaspheme,  calls  men  to  whom  the 
word  of  God  is  addressed  gods,  how  say  you  that  I  blaspheme,  I  .  .  .,  we 
almost  infallibly  expect  here:  I  who  am  the  Word  itself.  But  no;  the 
sentence  closes  with  these  words  : — "  I  whom  the  Father  hath  sanctified 
and  sent  into  the  world."  The  author  does  not  yield,  then,  to  any  theo- 
logical allurement;  he  remains  within  the  limits  of  the  Lord's  own 
language. 

Other  facts  still  attest  the  fidelity  with  which  he  can  confine  himself  to 
his  role  as  historian  even  in  that  which  concerns  the  discourse-portion 
of  his  work.  He  had,  in  his  prologue,  attributed  to  the  Logos  the  part  of 
divine  agent  in  the  work  of  creation.  He  had  done  this,  starting  from  the 
testimonies  of  Jesus  respecting  His  pre-existence  and  completing  them  by 
the  narrative  of  Genesis,  and  especially  by  that  striking  expression  :  "  Let 
us  make  man  in  our  image  "  (comp.  also  Gen.  iii.  22).  Nevertheless,  he 
had  not  heard  this  notion  of  the  creative  Logos  coming  forth  expressly 
from  the  lips  of  Jesus ;  therefore  he  does  not  bring  it  into  any  of  His  dis- 
courses. And  yet  it  might  very  naturally  have  presented  itself  to  him,  as 
he  wrote,  on  more  than  one  occasion.  Thus,  when  Jesus  prays,  saying :  "  Re- 
store to  me  the  glory  which  I  had  with  thee  before  the  world  was  made." 
How  easy  would  it  have  been  to  substitute  for  these  last  words  the  following : 
Before  I  made  the  world,  or :  Before  thou  madest  the  world  by  me.  In 
the  prologue,  the  Logos  is  also  presented  as  the  illuminator  of  humanity 
during  the  ages  previous  to  His  coming  (vv.  5,  9,  10).  This  idea,  once 
expressed  by  the  evangelist,  has  played  a  great  part  in  theology  since  the 
earliest  ages  of  Christianity.  The  author  does  not  bring  it  out  anywhere 
in  the  discourses  of  Jesus.  And  yet,  in  such  a  passage  as  x.  16,  where 
Jesus  declares  that  He  has  also  other  sheep  which  are  not  of  this  (Jewish) 
fold,  and  that  He  will  ere  long  bring  them,  or  in  the  discourse  of  chap. 
vi.,  where  He  several  times  expresses  the  idea,  that  there  is  needed  a 
divine  preliminary  teaching  and  drawing  in  order  to  believe  in  Him,  how 


CHARACTERISTICS — THE   DISCOURSES.  97 

natural  it  would  have  been  to  recur  to  the  idea  of  the  illumination  of  the 
human  soul  by  the  educating  light  of  the  Logos!  No,  .surely,  he  who 
made  Jesus  say  :  "  I  say  nothing  except  what  my  Father  teaches  me,"  did 
not  allow  himself  to  make  Him  speak  after  his  own  fancy.  As  he  himself 
declares,  1  Ep.  i.  1 :  "  That  which  he  announces  to  his  brethren  is  only  that 
which  he  has  seen  and  heard."  Far  from  the  discourses  of  Jesus  being 
only  the  development  of  a  theorem  placed  at  the  beginning  of  the  book, 
the  prologue  is  to  the  entire  work  only  that  which  the  argument  placed 
at  the  head  of  a  chapter,  and  drawn  from  the  contents  of  it,  is  to  the  chap- 
ter of  a  book  of  history.  It  is  a  forcible  synthesis,  freely  formulated,  of 
the  history  and  teachings  related  in  the  work  itself. 

We  should  find  a  confirmation  of  this  result  in  a  fact  frequently  pointed 
out  by  Reuss,  if  this  fact  were  as  fully  proved  to  our  view  as  it  is  to  his. 
According  to  this  critic,  we  often  meet  in  the  Lord's  discourses  expressions 
which  tend  to  establish  a  doctrine  directly  contrary  to  the  speculative 
theory  of  the  prologue.  This  doctrine  is  that  of  the  subordination  of  Jesus 
in  relation  to  God,  which,  it  is  urged,  is  contradictory  to  the  notion  of  the 
perfect  divinity  of  the  Son,  so  clearly  taught  in  the  prologue.  Reuss  thinks 
that  he  finds  in  this  very  contradiction  the  proof  of  the  fidelity  with  which 
the  teachings  of  Jesus,  on  certain  points,  have  been  preserved  by  our 
evangelist,  in  spite  of  his  own  theology.  But,  for  ourselves,  we  shall  care- 
fully refrain  from  using  this  argument,  which  rests  on  a  completely  false 
interpretation  of  the  data  of  the  prologue.  For  it  is  easy  to  prove  that  the 
subordination  of  the  Logos  to  the  Father  is  taught  in  this  section,  as  well 
as  in  all  the  rest  of  the  Gospel. 

Before  leaving  this  subject,  let  us  bring  forward  a  strange  observation 
of  the  same  writer.  The  question  is  as  to  the  words  of  John  xvii.  3.  The 
distinction  between  Jesus  Christ  and  the  only  true  God  is  there  very  strongly 
emphasized — a  fact  which,  according  to  Reuss,  is  also  contradictory  to  the 
teaching  of  the  prologue  respecting  the  divinity  of  the  Saviour.  This  judg- 
ment on  his  part  would  have  nothing  surprising  in  it,  if,  in  his  view,  those 
words  had  been  really  uttered  by  Jesus ;  they  would  come  into  the  cate- 
gory of  those  of  which  we  have  just  spoken.  But  no;  according  to  this 
critic,  these  words  are  invented  by  the  author,  as  well  as  those  of  the  pro- 
logue. The  evangelist,  then,  would  ascribe  to  Jesus,  in  this  case,  words 
contradictory  to  his  own  theology !  We  have  been  assured  up  to  this 
point,  that  he  freely  composed  the  discourses  in  order  to  put  his  theology 
into  them,  and  lo,  now,  he  makes  Jesus  speak  in  order  to  combat  Himself. 
In  what  a  labyrinth  of  contradictions  poor  criticism  here  loses  itself! 

B.  The  difficulties  alleged  against  the  historical  clutracter  of  the  discourses. 

There  is  a  very  prevalent  opinion,  at  the  present  day,  that  Jesus  could 
not  have  spoken  as  our  evangelist  makes  Him  speak.  Renan  regards  the 
Johannean  discourses  as  "  pieces  of  theology  and  rhetoric  to  which  we 
must  not  ascribe  historical  reality,  any  more  than  to  the  discourses  which 
Plato  puts  into  the  mouth  of  his  master  at  the  moment  of  dying." 
7 


98  BOOK   II.      THE  GOSPEL. 

1.  This  opinion  is,  first  of  all,  founded  on  the  improbabilities  inherent  in 
the  discourses  themselves. 

The  argument  is,  first,  from  the  obscurity  of  the  teachings.  It  would 
have  heen  a  strange  want  of  pedagogic  wisdom  on  Jesus'  part  to  teach  in 
a  way  so  little  intelligible.  "  One  would  say  that  Jesus  is  anxious  to  speak 
in  enigmas,  to  soar  always  in  the  higher  regions  inaccessible  to  the  under- 
standing of  the  common  people."  By  such  a  mode  of  teaching  He  would 
never  have  "  won  hearts  given  birth  to  that  enthusiastic  faith  which  sur- 
vived the  catastrophe  of  Golgotha." 1  Assuredly  not,  if  He  had  always 
spoken  in  this  way,  never  otherwise.  But  our  Gospel  does  not  claim  to 
be  any  more  complete  with  regard  to  teachings,  than  with  regard  to  facts. 
We  have  proved  this :  this  work  traces  out  only  a  score  of  occasions  se- 
lected from  a  ministry  of  two  years  and  a  half.  There  were  days — and 
they  were  the  largest  number — when  Jesus  led  His  hearers  on  the  lower  or 
middle  slopes  of  the  mountain  which  He  wished  to  make  humanity 
climb ;  but  there  were  others  when  He  sought  to  bring  them  near  to  the 
lofty  summits  and  to  give  them  a  glimpse  of  their  sublime  beauties.  With- 
out the  discourses  of  the  first  sort,  no  bond  would  have  been  formed  be- 
tween their  souls  and  His  own.  Without  those  of  the  second,  He  would 
not  have  raised  the  Church  to  the  height  from  which  it  was  to  conquer 
and  rule  the  world.  It  is  these  last  discourses  which  the  fourth  evangelist 
has  especially  reproduced,  because  this  higher  element  of  the  Saviour's 
teaching  had  not  found'  a  sufficient  place  in  the  primitive  tradition  in- 
tended for  popular  evangelization.  We  can  understand,  indeed,  that  the 
life-like  and  brilliant  parables,  the  very  forcible  moral  maxims,  and  all  the 
elements  of  this  sort,  would  rather  have  supplied  the  material  for  the  cate- 
chetical instruction  of  the  earliest  times,  and  that  the  teachings  of  a  more 
elevated  nature  would  have  remained  in  the  background  in  it,  without, 
however,  as  we  shall  see,  being  altogether  wanting. 

With  this  first  charge  is  connected  that  of  a  certain  monotony.  At  bot- 
tom, there  is  in  the  whole  Gospel,  according  to  Sabatier,  "  only  a  single 
discourse;"  Reuss  would,  indeed,  find  two  of  them.  According  to  the 
first  of  these  writers,  it  is  throughout  this  same  idea :  "  I  am  the  way,  the 
truth,  the  life."  According  to  the  second,  this  theme  is  developed,  some- 
times with  regard  to  the  unregenerate  world,  sometimes  with  regard  to 
those  who  already  belong  to  Jesus  Christ.2 

Do  the  facts,  when  seriously  questioned,  confirm  this  estimate?  On 
the  contrary,  has  not  every  discourse  in  this  Gospel  its  originality,  its 
particular  point  of  view,  as  much  as  the  teachings  contained  in  the 
Synoptics?  When  Jesus  reveals  to  Nicodemus  the  spiritual  nature  of  the 
kingdom  of  God,  in  opposition  to  the  earthly  idea  which  the  Pharisees 
formed  of  it;  when  He  teaches  the  Samaritan  woman  the  universality  of 
the  worship  which  He  comes  to  inaugurate  on  the  earth,  in  opposition  to 
the  local  character  of  the  ancient  worships;  when,  at  Jerusalem,  He 
unfolds  the  mystery  of  the  community  of  action  between  the  Father  and 

1  Reuss,  Theologie  johannique,  p.  51.  *  Sabatier,  p.  185 ;  Reuss,  p.  28. 


CHARACTERISTICS — THE   DISCOURSES.  99 

the  Son,  as  well  as  the  total  dependence  of  the  latter;  when,  at  Caper- 
naum, He  sets  forth  His  relation  to  the  lost  world,  and  offers  Himself  to  His 
hearers  as  the  bread  from  heaven  which  brings  tbe  life  of  God  to  man- 
kind ;  when,  in  chap,  x.,  He  reveals  to  the  people  of  Jerusalem  the 
formation  of  the  new  flock  which  He  is  about  to  take  out  of  the  old  one, 
and  which  He  will  till  up  by  the  sheep  brought  from  all  the  other  folds ; 
when,  on  the  last  evening,  He  announces  to  His  disciples  the  commission 
which  He  entrusts  to  them  of  supplying  His  place  on  earth  by  doing 
works  greater  than  His  own  ;  then,  when  He  describes  to  them  the  hatred 
of  the  world  of  which  they  will  be  the  objects,  and  when,  finally,  before 
saying  a  last  farewell  to  them,  and  commending  them  to  the  Father 
in  prayer,  He  promises  the  new  Helper,  by  means  of  whom  they  will 
convince  the  world  of  sin,  of  righteousness  and  of  judgment,  and 
will  obtain  in  His  name  a  complete  victory — can  this  be  the  teaching 
always  of  the  same  thing?  Is  there  not  some  partisan  interest  in  this 
judgment?  There  is  monotony,  if  you  will,  in  the  light  of  the  sun  ;  but 
what  variety  in  its  reflections !  There  is  the  same  in  the  boundless  azure 
of  the  sky  ;  but  what  richness  in  its  contrasts  with  the  varied  lines  of  tbe 
earthly  horizon !  At  tbe  foundation  of  every  Johannean  discourse  there 
is  an  open  heaven,  the  heart  of  the  Son  in  communion  with  that  of  the 
Father.  But  this  living,  personal  heaven  is  in  constant  relation  to  the 
infinitely  different  individuals  who  surround  it,  and  to  the  changing 
situations  through  which  it  moves  along  its  life.  The  monotony  which  is  II 
charged  upon  the  evangelist,  is  not  that  of  uniformity,  but  of  unity. 

Offense  is  taken  at  the  same  monotony  in  the  method  employed  by  the 
evangelist  to  introduce  the  exposition   of  his  theology.     He  regularly 
begins,  by  means  of  a  figurative  expression  which  he  ascribes  to  Jesus,  1 
with  making  the  hearer  fall  into  a  gross  and  absurd  misapprehension ;  I 
whereupon  Jesus  develops  His  thought  and  displays  His  superiority,  and  I 
that,  ordinarily,  by  pushing  His  thought  even  to  the  extreme  of  contra-  \ 
diction  to  that  of  His  interlocutor.     This  is  the  fact  in  the  case  of  Nico-  ( 
demus,  and  in  that  of  the  Samaritan  woman,  in  the  case  of  the  people 
after  the  multiplication  of  the  loaves,  and,  finally,  in  the  conflicts  at  Jeru- 
salem.    There  is  here  a  manner  adopted  by  the  author,  and  one  which 
cannot,  it  is  said,  belong  to  the  history.   But  if  the  people  who  surrounded 
Jesus  were  carnal  in  their  aspirations,  they  must  have  been  so  also  in 
their  understanding;  for  in  the  moral  domain  it  is  from  the  heart  that 
both  light  and  darkness  proceed;  Jesus  Himself  says  this,  Matt.  vi.  22. 
What  then  more  natural  than  the  constant  repetition  of  this  shock  at 
every  encounter  between  the  thought  of  Jesus  and  that  of  His  contem- 
poraries?    On  one  side,  immediate  intuition  of  things  above;    on  the 
other,  the  grossest  fleshly  want  of  understanding.     What  point  of  spiritual 
development  had  the  apostles  reached,  according  to  the  Synoptics  them- 
selves, after  two  whole  years,  during  which  Jesus  had  sought,  in  the 
conversations  of  every  day,  to  initiate  them  into  a  new  view  of  things? 
He  gives  them  this  admonition  :  "  Beware  of  the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees 
and  of  the  Sadducees ;  "   and  they  imagine  that  He  means  to  reproach 


100  BOOK   II.      THE   GOSPEL. 

them  with  the  forgetfulness  into  which  they  had  fallen  in  respect  to  pro- 
viding themselves  with  bread  for  their  proposed  journey  !  Jesus  is  obliged 
to  say  to  them  :  "  Have  you  no  understanding,  have  you  your  heart  still 
hardened,  eyes  not  to  see,  and  ears  not  to  hear  ?  "  (Mark  viii.  17,  IS.)  And 
yet  the  critic  would  declare  a  similar  misunderstanding  impossible  in  the 
case  of  Nicodemus,  of  the  Samaritan  woman,  of  His  hearers  in  Galilee  or 
in  Jerusalem,  who  conversed  with  Him  for  the  first  time.  And,  moreover, 
it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  the  thought  of  Nicodemus  is  simply  this  :  "  It 
is  not,  however,  possible  that  .  .  .  " — this  is  what  the  p4  (negative  inter- 
rogation), which  begins  his  question,  signifies ;  and  that  in  other  cases, 
such  as  John  vii.  35  and  viii.  22,  the  apparent  misapprehension  of  the 
Jews  is,  in  reality,  only  derisive  bantering  on  their  part.  As  to  the  misappre- 
hension of  the  people  of  Capernaum,  John  vi.,  many  others  were  deceived 
here,  even  afterwards,  in  spite  of  the  explanation  of  Jesus,  ver.  63 :  "  It  is 
the  spirit  that  quicken eth,  the  flesh- profiteth  nothing."  The  phenomenon 
which  is  marked  as  suspicious  is,  therefore,  simply  a  feature  drawn 
from  fact. 

The  same  is  true  of  the  dialogue-form  in  which  many  of  the  teachings 
of  Jesus  are  presented,  especially  in  chaps,  vii.  and  viii.  and  in  chap.  xiv. 
How  could  such  minute  details  have  been  preserved,  either  in  the  indi- 
vidual recollection  of  the  author,  or  traditionally  ?    "  These  questions  and 
objections,"  it  is  said,  "do  not  belong  to  the  history,  but  to  the  form  of  the 
redaction."    They  wonderfully  depict  the  state  of  men's  minds,  as  the 
author  found  it  before  him  when  he  wrote,  but  by  no  means  as  it  was  when 
Jesus  was  preaching.1    But  are  we  then  so  exactly  acquainted  with  the 
difference  which-the  state  of  men's  minds  may  have  presented  at  the  be- 
ginning of  the  second  century  or  about  the  middle  of  the  first?    And  how 
can  it  be  seriously  maintained  that  the  questions  and  objections  which 
follow  suit  better  the  state  of  mind  in  Asia  Minor  at  the  beginning  of  the 
second  century,  than  the  Palestinian   prejudices  in  the  time  of  Jesus? 
"  Doth  the  Christ,  then,  come  out  of  Galilee  .  .  .  ?    Doth  he  not  come 
\  from  Bethlehem,  the  village  where  David  was?"  (vii.  41,  42.)     "  We  know 
whence  this  man  is ;  but  when  the  Christ  shall  come,  no  one  will  know 
I  whence  he  is"  (ver.  27).     "Are  we  not  right  in  saying  that  thou  art  a 
|  Samaritan?"  (viii.  48.)     "Art  thou,  then,  greater  than  our  father  Abra- 
Iham?"  (ver.  53.)     "We  are  Abraham's  seed,  and  have  never  been  in 
bondage  to  any  one"  (ver.  33).     "How  can  this  man  give  us  his  flesh  to 
■eat?"  (vi.  52.)     "Is  not  this  Jesus,  the  son  of  Joseph,  whose  father  and 
mother  we  know?    How  then  doth  he  say  :  I  came  down  from  heaven?" 
>(vcr.  42.)    If  one  desires  to  find  a  speaking  proof  of  the  truly  historical 
character  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  in  our  Gospel,  it  is  precisely  in  these 
dialogues  that  it  must  be  sought.     To  open  a  commentary  is  enough  to 
convince  us  that  we  have  here  living  manifestations  of  the  Palestinian  Ju- 
daism which  was  contemporary  with  Jesus.     Besides,  this  dialogue-form  is 
not  constant ;  barely  indicated  in  chaps,  hi.,  iv.,  a  little  more  developed  in 

v     •  Reuss,  Theol.  joh.,  p.  9. 


CHAEACTERISTICS — THE   DISCOURSES.  101 

chap,  vi.,  it  is  altogether  dominant  in  chaps,  vii.,  viii. — a  thing  which  is 
perfectly  suited  to  the  situation,  since  here  is  the  culminating  point  of  the 
conflict  between  the  Lord  and  His  adversaries  at  Jerusalem.  We  find 
scarcely  any  traces  of  it  in  chap,  x.,  where  Jesus  begins  to  withdraw  from 
the  struggle.  It  reappears  in  an  emphatic  way  only  in  chap,  xiv.,  where 
it  is  again  rendered  natural  by  the  situation.  It  is  the  last  moment  of  con- 
versation between  Jesus  and  His  own ;  they  take  advantage  of  it  to  express 
freely  the  doubts  which  each  one  of  them  still  has  in  his  heart.  Let  one 
picture  to  himself  a  Christian  of  the  second  century  crying  out,  with  the 
simplicity  of  Philip  :  "  Lord,  show  us  the  Father  and  it  sufficeth  us !  "  or, 
with  the  pretence  of  sharing  in  the  ignorance  of  Thomas,  setting  himself  to 
say  :  "We  know  not  whither  thou  goest,  and  how  shall  we  know  the  way?" 
or  asking  with  Judas  :  "  Why  wilt  thou  make  thyself  known  to  us,  and  not 
to  the  world?  "  or  murmuring  aside  like  the  disciples  (xvi.  17) :  "  What  is 
this  that  he  saith :  A  little  while,  and  ye  shall  not  see  me ;  and  again  a 
little  while,  and  ye  shall  see  me  ?  We  cannot  tell  what  he  saith."  The 
situation  which  gave  rise  to  these  questions  and  these  doubts  existed  but 
for  a  moment,  on  that  last  evening  in  which  John's  narrative  places  them. 
From  the  days  which  followed  all  these  mysteries  had  received  their  solu- 
tion through  the  great  facts  of  salvation  which  were  from  this  time  forward 
accomplished.  These  objections  and  questions,  which  it  is  claimed  arc  to 
be  placed  in  the  second  century,  carry  therefore  their  date  in  themselves 
and  belong  in  their  very  nature  to  the  upper  chamber ;  it  is,  consequently, 
the  same  with  the  answers  which  correspond  to  them. 

Certain  historical  contradictions  are  also  alleged.  The  following  are  the 
two  principal  ones.  Chap.  x.  26,  in  the  account  of  the  visit  of  Jesus  at 
the  feast  of  the  Dedication,  in  December,  the  evangelist  places  in  His 
mouth  this  reproach  :  "  Ye  are  not  of  my  sheep,  as  I  said  unto  you,"  which 
is  supposed  to  be  a  quotation  of  the  words  addressed  to  the  Jews,  some 
months  before,  at  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  (comp.  the  allegories  of  the 
Shepherd,  the  Door,  and  the  Good  Shepherd,  in  the  first  part  of  the  same 
chapter).  He  forgets,  therefore,  as  he  makes  Jesus  speak  thus,  that  the 
audience  had  entirely  changed  from  the  one  feast  to  the  other.  But  why 
changed  ?  we  will  ask.  It  was  not  to  pilgrims  who  were  strangers,  that 
Jesus  had  spoken  so  severely  some  months  before.  It  was  to  a  group  of 
Pharisees  who  asked  Him,  mocking,  (ix.  40) :  "  And  arc  we  also  blind?  " 
They  spoke  thus  in  the  name  of  their  whole  party,  and  this  party,  wc 
know,  had  its  seat  at  Jerusalem.  I  do  not  say  certainly  that  at  the  feast 
of  the  Dedication  it  was  the  same  individuals  who  found  themselves  again 
face  to  face  with  Jesus  ;  but  it  was  indeed  the  same  class  of  persons,  the 
Pharisees  of  Jerusalem,  together  with  the  population  of  that  city  which 
was  entirely  governed  by  their  spirit.  Besides,  every  one  knows  that  the 
words:  as  I  said  unto  you,  on  which  all  the  complaint  rests,  are  omitted 
in  six  of  the  principal  majuscules,  particularly  in  the  Sinaitic  and 
Vatican. 

Another  similar  argument  is  drawn  from  the  discourse  of  Jesus,  reported 
in  xii.  44  ff.     It  is  "  a  recapitulation  of  the  evangelical  theology,"  says 


102  BOOK   II.      THE  GOSPEL. 

Reuss ;  and  the  author  puts  it  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus  here,  without 
thinking  that,  according  to  his  own  narrative,  Jesus  has  just  "withdrawn 
and  disappeared  from  the  public  view."  Here  is  a  fact,  adds  this  critic, 
which  is  well  fitted  "  to  give  us  a  just  idea  of  the  nature  of  the  discourses 
of  Jesus  "  in  this  work.1  Baur  had  already  concluded  from  this  passage 
that  the  historical  situations  are  for  the  author  nothing  but  mere  forms. 
It  is  not  the  evangelist's  fault  if  his  narrative  is  thus  judged.  He  had 
counted  on  readers  who  would  not  doubt  his  common  sense.  He  had 
just  expressly  concluded  the  narrative  of  the  public  ministry  of  Jesus  by 
this  solemn  sentence :  "  And  departing,  he  did  hide  himself  from  them  " 
(ver.  36).  And  yet  he  is  said  to  put  into  His  mouth,  immediately  after- 
wards, a  solemn  address  "to  the  people  !  No ;  from  ver.  37  the  author  has 
himself  begun  to  speak ;  he  gives  himself  up  to  the  sorrowful  contempla- 
tion of  the  unsuccessfulness  of  such  an  extraordinary  ministry.  He 
proves  by  the  facts  the  inefficacy  of  the  numerous  miracles  of  Jesus  to 
overcome  the  unbelief  of  the  people  (vv.  37-43).  Then,  in  ver.  44,  he 
passes,  in  this  same  recapitulation,  from  the  miracles  to  the  teachings, 
which,  as  well  as  the  miracles,  had  remained  inefficacious  before  such 
obduracy ;  and  in  order  to  give  an  understanding  of  what  the  entire 
preaching  ministry  accomplished  by  Jesus  in  Israel  had  been,  he  sums  it 
up  in  the  discourse,  vv.  44-50,  which  is,  in  relation  to  the  discourses  of 
Jesus,  what  ver.  37  was  to  His  miraculous  activity,  a  simple  summary : 
"  And  yet  he  cried  aloud !"  Then  follows  the  summary,  thus  announced, 
of  all  the  solemn  testimonies  which  had  remained  fruitless.  This  passage, 
also,  is  distinguished  from  all  the  real  discourses,  in  that  it  does  not 
|  contain  a  single  new  idea ;  for  every  word,  two  or  three  parallels  can  be 
cited  in  the  preceding  discourses.  Reuss,  therefore,  is  unfortunate  in 
proposing  to  draw  from  this  discourse,  which  is  not  one  in  the  intention 
of  the  evangelist  himself,  the  true  standard  for  the  estimate  of  all  those 
which,  in  this  work,  are  put  into  the  mouth  of  our  Lord. 

Finally,  objection  has  also  been  made  to  the  truth  of  the  discourses  by 
reason  of  the  impossibility  that  the  author  should  have  retained  them  in 
memory  up  to  the  time,  no  doubt  quite  late  in  his  life,  when  he  wrote 
them  out.  Reuss  abandons  this  objection.  He  thinks  that  the  words  of 
Jesus,  so  far  as  the  author  either  heard  them  himself  or  borrowed  them 
from  "the  tradition,  "must  have  been  throughout  his  life  the  subject  of  his 
meditations,  and  must  have  been  impressed  the  more  deeply  on  his  mind 
the  longer  he  fed  upon  them."2  In  fact,  if  the  question  is  of  the  earnest 
discussions  carried  on  at  Jerusalem  (chaps,  vii.  viii.),  how  should  they  not 
have  been  distinctly  impressed  on  the  memory  of  the  one  who  witnessed 
them  with  such  lively  anxiety  ?  As  for  the  discourses  which  are  some- 
what extended,  like  those  of  chap.  v.  and  vi.,  x.,  xv.-xvii.,  the  hearer's 
memory  found,  in  every  case,  a  point  of  support  in  a  central  idea  which 
was  clearly  formulated  at  the  beginning,  and  which  unfolded  itself  after- 
wards in  a  series  of  particular  notions  subordinated  to  this  primal  idea. 

ip.  50.  « P. «. 


CHARACTERISTICS — THE   DISCOURSES. 


103 


Thus  in  chap,  v.,  the  first  part  of  the  apologetic  discourse  of  Jesus  is  con-] 
tained,  as  if  in  its  germ,  in  that  very  striking  saying  of  ver.  17 :  "  My 
Father  worketh  hitherto,  and  [consequently]  I  also  work."  This  idea  of 
the  necessary  co-operation  of  the  Son  with  J I  is  Father  is  developed  in  a 
first  cycle  under  two  aspects:  The  Son  beholding  the  Father,  and  the 
Father  revealing  His  work  to  the  Son,  vv.  19,  20.  Then,  this  first  cycle, 
which  is  also  very  summary  in  its  character,  becomes  the  starting-point 
of  a  new,  more  precise  development,  in  which  is  unfolded,  even  to  its 
most  concrete  applications,  the  work  of  the  Son  in  execution  of  the 
thought  of  the  Father.  This  work  consists  in  the  two  divine  acts  of  quick 
ening  and  judging  (vv.  21-28),  acts  which  are  taken  up  each  one  of  them 
successively,  and  followed  out  through  all  their  historical  phases  even  to 
their  complete  realization,  at  first  spiritual,  then  external  and  material 
(vv.  24-29). — It  is  nearly  the  same  in  the  second  part  of  this  discourse  (vv 
30— 17),  in  which  everything  is  subordinated  to  this  principal  thought 
"  There  is  another  [the  Father]  that  beareth  witness  of  me,"  and  in  whie 
is  set  forth  the  three-fold  testimony  of  the  Father  on  behalf  of  the  Son 
with  a  final  forcible  application  to  the  hearers. — In  chap,  vi.,  it  is  easy  t> 
see  that  everything — discourse  and  conversation — is  likewise  subordinated  I 
to  a  great  idea, — that  which  naturally  arises  from  the  miracle  of  the  pre- 
ceding day  :  "  I  am  the  bread  of  life."  This  affirmation  is  developed  in  a 
series  of  concentric  cycles,  which  end  finally  in  this  most  striking  and 
concrete  expression  :  "  Unless  ye  eat  my  flesh  and  drink  my  blood,  ye  will 
not  have  life  in  yourselves."  In  chap,  xvii.,  in  the  second  part  of  the 
sacerdotal  prayer,  which  contains  the  intercession  of  Jesus  for  His  dis- 
ciples, His  thought  follows  the  same  course.  The  general  idea :  "  I  pray 
for  them,"  soon  divides  itself  into  those  two  more  particular  ones  which 
become,  each  of  them,  the  centre  of  a  subordinate  cycle:  "Keep  them"  , 
(jripricov),  ver.  11,  that  is  to  say :  "  Let  not  the  work  be  impaired  which  I 
have  accomplished  in  them,"  and  :  "  Sanctify  them  "  (dytaaov),  ver.  17,  that 
is  to  say  :  "  Perfect  and  finish  their  consecration." — In  these  several  cases, ; 
if  the  thoughts  of  Jesus  really  were  unfolded  in  this  form,  which  best  suits 
the  nature  of  religious  contemplation,  we  can  readily  understand  how  it  was 
not  difficult  for  an  attentive  hearer  to  reproduce  such  sayings.  It  was 
enough  for  him  to  fix  his  attention  strongly  on  the  central  thought,  dis- 
tinctly engraved  upon  his  memory,  and  then  inwardly  to  repeat  the  same 
process  of  evolution  which,  from  this  germ,  had  produced  the  discourse. 
He  thus  recovered  again  the  subordinate  ideas,  from  which  he  reached 
even  the  most  concrete  details.  Jesus,  however,  did  not  always  speak  in 
this  way;  we  have  the  proof  of  this  in  our  Synoptics,  and  in  the  fourth 
Gospel  itself.  This  method  was  natural  when  a  theme  of  great  richness 
was  indicated  to  Him  by  the  situation,  as  in  chaps,  v.  and  vi.  But  we  do 
not  find  anything  of  the  kind  either  in  the  conversation  with  Nicodemus, 
or  in  those  of  chap.  xiv. — which  proves  that  we  need  not  see  in  this  a  style 
peculiar  to  the  evangelist.  The  following  is,  probably,  what  happened  in 
the  last  mentioned  cases.  The  conversation  with  Nicodemus  certainly 
continued  much  longer  than  the  few  moments  which  we  use  in  reading 


CkVi 


II 


104  BOOK   II.      THE   GOSPEL. 

it,  and  the  last  conversations  of  Jesus  with  the  disciples,  having  rilled  a 
great  part  of  the  evening,  must  have  lasted  some  hours.  It  must  there- 
fore he  admitted  (unless  all  this  was  invented)  that  a  work  of  condensation 
was  wrought  in  the  mind  of  the  narrator,  in  which  the  essential  thoughts 
gradually  became  separated  from  the  secondary  thoughts  and  transitions, 
and  then  were  directly,  and  without  a  connective,  joined  to  one  another, 
as  they  actually  appear  to  us  in  the  account  given  by  John.  There  remain 
for  us,  therefore,  of  these  conversations  only  the  principal  points.  Nothing 
could  be  more  simple  than  this  process. 

The  conclusion  of  this  study,  therefore,  is  that  there  is  no  serious  intrinsic 
difficulty  to  prevent  us  from  admitting  the  historical  truth  of  the  teachings 
of  Jesus  contained  in  our  Gospel. 

II.  But  a  more  serious  objection  is  drawn  from  the  correspondence  of 
these  discourses  with  those  of  John  the  Baptist,  and  with  the  author's  own 
teachings  in  the  prologue  and  in  his  first  epistle. 

Jesus,  in  St.  John,  speaks  just  as  John  the  Baptist  does  (comp.  i.  15,  29, 
30;  iii.  27-36),  just  as  the  evangelist  himself  does  in  his  own  writings.  Is 
there  not  here  an  evident  proof  that  the  discourses — those  of  Jesus,  like 
those  of  John  the  Baptist — are  his  own  composition  ?  There  can  be  no 
question  here  of  style,  as  to  its  grammatical  and  syntactic  forms ;  how, 
indeed,  is  it  possible  that  the  style  should  not  be  that  of  the  evangelist? 
Neither  Jesus  nor  John  the  Baptist  spoke  in  Greek ;  and  to  reproduce  their 
discourses  in  a  tolerable  way  in  that  language,  whose  genius  is  precisely 
the  opposite  of  that  of  the  Aramaean  language,  in  which  the  Saviour  and 
His  forerunner  spoke,  a  literal  translation  was  impossible.  The  author 
was  obliged  in  any  case,  therefore,  to  go  underneath  the  words  to  the 
thoughts,  and  then  to  clothe  these  again  with  a  new  expression  borrowed 
from  the  language  in  which  he  was  relating  them.  In  such  a  work  of 
assimilation  and  reproduction,  why  might  not  the  language  of  John  the 
Baptist  have  taken  a  coloring  like  that  of  the  language  of  Jesus,  and  the 
language  of  both  the  coloring  of  the  evangelist's  style?  The  question 
here  is  not  of  the  external  forms  of  speech ;  it  is  of  the  faithful  preserva- 
tion of  the  thoughts.  In  translating  the  words  of  John  and  Jesus,  is  it  to 
be  supposed  that  the  author  altered  their  meaning?  Was  there  anything 
of  his  own  added  ?  Or  did  he  even  compose  with  entire  freedom  ? 
It  is  supposed  that  an  affirmative  answer  can  be  given.  First  of  all,  the 
discourse  of  John  the  Baptist,  iii.  27-36,  is  alleged.  Reuss  grants,  no 
doubt,  that  two  expressions  of  this  discourse  proceed  from  the  forerunner 
— that  which  forms  the  opening  of  it :  "I  am  not  the  Christ,"  and  the 
word  which  is  its  centre :  "  He  must  increase,  but  I  must  decrease."  * 
Moreover,  continues  the  critic,  "  there  is  hot  in  all  the  remainder  a  word 
which  does  not  find  a  place  quite  as  well,  or  rather  a  hundred  times 
better,  in  the  mouth  of  a  Christian  wholly  imbued  with  the  dominant 
ideas  of  this  book,  and  which  is  not  reproduced  elsewhere,  as  to  its  essence, 
in  the  discourses  ascribed  to  Jesus  Himself."2    But  what!  can  it  be  that 

1  Reuss'  Translation.  s  Pp.  48,  49. 


CHARACTERISTICS — THE   DISCOURSES.  105 

these  words  made  up  the  whole  of  the  Baptist's  answer  to  his  disciples, 
who  were  bitterly  accusing  Jesus  of  ingratitude  !  Let  it  be  allowed  us  to 
believe  that  he  developed  them  somewhat,  and,  in  particular,  to  place  in 
the  number  of  the  authentic  expressions  that  word  of  inimitable  beauty 
(ver.  29) :  "  He  that  hath  the  bride  is  the  bridegroom ;  the  friend  of  the 
bridegroom  who  standeth  and  heareth  him,  rejoiceth  greatly  because  of 
the  bridegroom's  voice ;  and  this  my  joy  is  fulfilled."  Men  did  not  invent 
after  this  fashion  in  the  second  century,  as  our  Apocryphal  books  bear 
witness !  Let  us  go  still  further :  if  we  admit  the  narrative  of  the 
Synoptics,  according  to  which  the  forerunner  had  heard  the  voice  of  the 
Father  saying  to  Jesus :  "  Thou  art  my  beloved  Son  ;  in  thee  I  am  well 
pleased,"  is  it  impossible  to  admit  that  the  same  man  should  have  uttered 
these  words,  which  the  evangelist  puts  into  his  mouth  (ver.  35) :  "  The. 
Father  loveth  the  Son,  and  hath  put  all  things  into  his  hand  ?  "  If  it  is  also 
true — still  according  to  the  Synoptics — that  John  saw  the  Holy  Spirit 
descending  upon  Jesus  in  the  form  of  a  dove,  that  is,  in  His  organic  and 
indivisible  plenitude,  is  it  incredible  that  he  should  have  expressed  himself 
with  regard  to  Jesus  as  he  does,  according  to  John,  in  ver.  34  :  "  He  speak- 
eth  the  words  of  God ;  for  God  giveth  him  the  Spirit  without  measure  (or  : 
the  Spirit  giveth  them  to  him  without  measure)?"  And  if  John  the 
Baptist  expresses  himself  at  the  beginning  of  his  ministry  as  the  Synoptics 
make  him  speak  :  "  Brood  of  vipers,  who  hath  warned  you  to  flee  from 
the  wrath  to  come?  Every  tree  that  bringeth  not  forth  good  fruit  is  cut 
down  and  cast  into  the  fire !  "  (Matt.  iii.  7-10),  is  it  not  very  natural  that 
he  should  close  his  public  activity  with  this  warning  :  "  He  that  refuseth 
to  obey  the  Son,  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him."  Here  is  the  last  echo  of 
the  thunders  of  Sinai,  which  is  in  its  appropriate  place  in  the  mouth  of  the 
last  representative  of  the  old  covenant.  But  the  objection  falls  back  on 
the  saying :  "  He  testifieth  of  what  he  hath  seen  and  heard,  and  no  man 
receiveth  his  testimony,"  and  it  asks  how  it  can  be  that  John  the  Baptist 
should  so  literally  repeat  the  declaration  of  Jesus  Himself  in  His  conver- 
sation with  Nicodemus  (ver.  11) :  "  Verily,  I  say  unto  thee,  we  speak  that 
which  we  know  and  testify  that  which  we  have  seen,  and  ye  receive  not 
our  testimony."  He  was  not  present,  however,  at  that  conversation  !  No ; 
but  it  may  well  be  that  something  of  it  had  been  reported  to  him  ;  and, 
even  if  it  was  otherwise,  what  meaning  would  the  words  of  the  Baptist 
have  which  we  were  just  now  calling  to  mind :  "  The  friend  of  the  bride- 
groom who  standeth  and  heareth,  rejoiceth  exceedingly  because  of  the 
bridegroom's  voice  ;  and  this  my  joy  is  fulfilled  ?  "  He  hears  the  voice  of 
the  bridegroom  !  Some  word  of  Jesus,  then,  has  come  to  his  ears.  And 
is  it  not  natural  indeed,  that,  while  John  and  Jesus  were  baptizing  in  each 
other's  neighborhood  (vv.  22,  23),  those  of  the  apostles  who  had  been  dis- 
ciples of  the  forerunner  should  have  taken  a  few  steps  to  go  and  salute 
their  former  master,  and  should  have  reported  to  him  what  Jesus  did  and 
said?  The  discourse  of  John  the  Baptist  is  thus  explained  from  beginning 
to  end.  And  the  word  to  which  Reuss  reduced  it,  ver.  30,  was  simply  its 
central  idea.    Indeed,  all  that  precedes  (vv.  27-29),  is  the  development  of 


106  BOOK   II.      THE  GOSPEL. 

the  second  proposition  :  "  I  must  decrease,"  and  all  that  follows,  w.  31-36, 
is  that  of  the  first :  "  He  must  increase." 

But  is  it  possible  to  regard  as  historical  the  words  put  into  the  mouth 
of  John  the  Baptist  in  the  prologue,  i.  15,  and  repeated  afterwards  in  the 
narrative  itself,  i.  30 :  "  He  who  cometh  after  me  was  before  me  ?  "  Could 
John  know  and  declare  the  divine  pre-existence  of  Jesus  ?  If  this  declara- 
tion had  been  mentioned  only  in  the  prologue,  which  is  the  composition 
of  the  evangelist,  the  doubt  would  be  possible.  But  the  author  expressly 
places  it  again,  at  a  little  later  point,  in  its  historical  context  (ver.  30).  He 
relates  how  it  was  at  Bethany  that  the  forerunner  uttered  it,  on  the  day 
which  followed  that  of  the,  deputation  of  the  Sanhedrim.  There  would  be 
a  singular  affectation,  not  to  say,  palpable  bad  faith,  in  these  subsidiary 
indications  of  time  and  place,  if  the  words  were  the  invention  of  the  au- 
thor. Besides  they  have  a  seal  of  originality  and  of  mysterious  concise- 
ness which  is  foreign  to  the  later  fictions.  And  why  should  they  not  be 
authentic  ?  When  John  the  Baptist  began  his  ministry,  we  know  that 
the  programme  of  his  work  was  the  double  prophecy  of  Isaiah  xl.  3:  "A 
voice  crying  in  the  wilderness :  Prepare  ye  the  way  of  the  Lord,"  and  of 
Malachi  iii.  i :  "  Behold,  I  send  my  messenger,  and  he  shall  prepare  the 
way  before  me  "  (Matt.  iii.  3 ;  x.  10 ;  Mark  i.  2,  3 ;  Luke  i.  17  ;  vii.  27). 
Now,  in  the  second  of  these  two  passages,  always  so  closely  bound  to- 
gether, He  who  seyids  the  messenger  (Jehovah)  is  none  other  than  He 
who  is  Himself  soon  to  follow  him  (Jehovah  as  Messiah) ;  this  is  unan- 
swerably proved  by  the  words,  before  me,  in  the  prophetic  utterance.  If 
John  the  Baptist  was  acquainted  with  this  passage,  could  he  not  under- 
stand— what  do  I  say  ? — could  he  fail  to  understand,  that  the  one  coming 
after  him  (the  Messiah)  was  the  one  sending  him,  and  consequently  his 
predecessor  on  the  scene  of  history,  the  invisible  theocratic  King.  The 
question  comes  back,  then,  to  this :  Did  John  the  Baptist  know  how  to 
read? 

The  resemblance  in  matter  and  form  between  the  prologue  and  the  dis- 
courses of  Jesus  does  not  constitute  a  difficulty  which  is  any  more  serious. 
For,  on  the  one  hand,  we  have  seen  that  the  matter  of  the  teachings  of 
the  prologue  is,  in  great  part,  only  a  resumd  of  these  very  discourses;  and, 
on  the  other,  it  is  impossible  that,  in  translating  them  from  Aramaic  into 
Greek,  the  author  should  not,  in  a  certain  measure,  have  clothed  them 
in  his  own  style.  The  conformity  indicated  is,  therefore,  a  fact  which  is 
easily  explained. 

Is  the  conformity  between  the  discourses  and  the  first  Epistle  to  be  con- 
sidered more  compromising  for  the  authenticity  of  the  former?  As  to  the 
form,  the  resemblance  is  explained  by  the  causes  already  pointed  out,  when 
speaking  of  the  prologue.  But  even  from  this  external  point  of  view,  H. 
Meyer  has  discovered  a  kind  of  impoverishment  in  the  vocabulary  of  the 
epistle,  as  compared  with  that  of  the  discourses.1  Some  thirty  substantives, 
some  twenty  verbs — this  is  the  wrhole  linguistic  fund  of  the  epistle.    What 

,  l  Les  discours  du  IV."  evangile,  p.  94. 


CHARACTERISTICS — THE  DISCOURSES.  107 

a  difference  from  the  discourses,  so  rich  in  living  and  original  words,  and 
in  striking  and  varied  images !  There  are  also,  on  the  other  hand,  certain 
particular  expressions  which  appertain  to  the  epistle  and  which  are  foreign 
to  the  Gospel,  such  as  to  be  bom  of  God  (ii.  29;  hi.  9;  iv.  7;  v.  1;  comp. 
the  prologue,  Gosp.  i.  18);  the  anointing  of  the  Spirit  (ii.  20,  27);  the  title 
of  Paraclete  applied  to  Jesus  (ii.  1). 

As  to  the  matter,  we  discover  even  much  more  remarkable  differences 
between  the  epistle  and  the  Gospel,  which  prove  that  the  author  observed 
very  carefully  the  line  of  demarcation  between  his  own  thoughts  and  the 
teachings  of  Jesus.  We  shall  set  forth  three  points,  especially,  which  hold 
an  important  place  in  the  epistle,  and  which  are  not  mentioned  anywhere 
in  the  discourses:  1.  The  expiatory  value  of  the  Lord's  death  (Ep.  i.  7,  9; 
ii.  2;  iv.  10;  v.  6);  2.  The  coming  of  Antichrist  (ii.  18, 22 ;  iv.  1-3) ;  3.  The 
expectation  of  the  Parousia  (i.  18,  28 ;  iii.  2).  These  three  notions,  while 
connecting  our  epistle  closely  with  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  distinguish  it 
profoundly  from  the  Johannean  discourses.  The  attempt  has  been,  not 
long  since,  made  to  explain  this  difference  by  ascribing  the  epistle  to  an- 
other author  than  the  Gospel.  This  hypothesis  has  not  been  able  to  main- 
tain itself,  even  in  the  midst  of  the  school  in  which  it  arose.  The  disciples 
of  Baur,  such  as  Hilgenfeld,  Ludemann,  etc.,  are  agreed  in  rejecting  it. 
How  then  can  we  explain  this  singular  difference?  Several  critics  have 
been  led  to  think  that  the  author  of  the  two  works  was  still  imbued  with 
his  old  Jewish  ideas  when  he  composed  the  epistle,  and  that  he  rose  only 
at  a  later  time  to  the  sublime  spirituality  which  distinguishes  the  Gospel.1 
The  epistle  would,  thus,  be  older  than  the  Gospel.  We  do  not  believe  that 
this  hypothesis  can  be  sustained.  The  discourses  contained  in  the  Gospel 
are  distinguished  from  the  teachings  of  the  epistle  by  a  force  of  thought 
and  a  vigor  of  expression,  which  indicate  for  them  a  date  anterior  to  the 
composition  of  this  latter  work.  Besides,  the  man  who,  in  the  epistle,  ad- 
dresses himself  not  only  to  the  children  and  young  men,  but  also  to  fatliers 
of  families  and  to  all  the  members  of  the  churches,  calling  them  "  my  little 
children"  (ii.  1,  18,  28;  v.  21),  cannot  have  been  otherwise  than  far  ad- 
vanced in  age.  It  is  not  under  such  conditions  that  a  man  rises  from  the 
style  of  the  epistle  to  that  of  the  Gospel,  from  the  somewhat  slow  and  even 
hesitating  step  of  the  one  to  the  straightforward  and  powerful  flight  of  the 
other.2  A  further  proof  that  the  composition  of  the  discourses  preceded 
that  of  the  epistle,  is  the  fact  that  all  the  ideas  which  in  the  discourses  are 
presented  in  a  form  which  is  historical,  occasional,  actual,  applicable  to 
particular  circumstances  and  hearers,  reappear  in  the  epistle  in  an  abstract 
form  as  general  Christian  maxims,  and,  in  some  sort,  as  the  elements  of  a 
religious  philosophy.  Jesus  said  in  the  Gospel :  "  God  so  loved  the  world," 
or  "  Thou  didst  love  me  before  the  foundation  of  the  world."  The  epistle 
says :  "  God  is  love."    Jesus  said :  "  The  Father  whose  offspring  you  are  is 


1  Hilgenfeld,  Einleitung,  p.  738;  Ludemann,  *Sabatier  himself   acknowledges   (p.  189) 

zur    Eiklarung  de»  Papias-FragmenU,  in  the       that  the  epistle  is  poorer,  more  feeblo  than 
Jahrb./ur  prot.  TheoL,  1879.  the  discourses  in  the  Gospel. 


108  BOOK   II.      THE  GOSPEL. 

the  devil,  and  you  do  the  works  of  your  father."  The  epistle  says :  "  He 
that  commits  sin  is  of  the  devil."  Jesus  said :  "  You  have  not  chosen  me,  but 
I  have  chosen  you."  The  epistle  says:  "It  is  not  we  who  have  loved  God; 
it  is  He  who  has  loved  us."  Jesus  said :  "  I  am  the  light  of  the  world ;  he 
that  followeth  me  shall  not  walk  in  darkness."  The  epistle  says:  "God  is 
light .  .  .  the  true  light  now  shineth."  Jesus  said:  "I  have  a  witness  greater 
than  that  of  men."  The  epistle  says  :  "If  we  receive  the  witness  of  men, 
that  of  God  is  greater."  Is  itnot  evident  that  these  aphorisms  of  the  second 
work  are  nothing  but  the  generalization  of  the  special  affirmations,  full  of 
reality,  which  belong  to  the  first?  The  Gospel  is  history;  the  epistle  is  the 
spirit  of  history.  It  is  consequently  contrary  to  all  sound  criticism  to 
place  the  latter  before  the  former. 

The  difference  between  these  two  works  must,  therefore,  be  explained 
in  another  way.  It  is  an  indisputable  fact  that  the  ideas  which  we  have 
pointed  out  as  clearly  distinguishing  the  epistle  from  the  Gospel,  apper- 
tain to  the  Synoptic  teaching,  and  consequently  form  a  part  of  the  apos- 
tolic beliefs  and  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  in  general.  Here,  then,  was 
the  matter  from  which  the  author  drew  when  writing  the  epistle.  But 
when  he  wrote  out  the  five  or  six  discourses  which  he  has  preserved  for 
us,  he  did  not  allow  himself  to  go  beyond  their  original  purport,  nor  to 
introduce  into  them,  as  Reuss  claims,  the  whole  of  his  theology.  He  lim- 
ited himself  to  that  which  he  had  heard  on  those  particular  occasions.  The 
epistle  forms  thus  a  natural  link  of  connection  between  the  Johannean 
teachings  and  those  of  the  Synoptics.  And  the  more  closely  it  attaches 
itself  to  the  latter  in  the  substance  of  the  ideas,  the  more  does  it  become 
a  confirmation  of  the  historical  character  both  of  the  one  and  the  other. 

Far  then  from  giving  us  grounds  of  suspicion,  the  comparison  of  the  dis- 
courses with  the  author's  own  compositions  is  converted  into  a  proof  of 
the  fidelity  with  which  he  has  reproduced  the  former,  and  the  author 
seems  nowhere  to  have  crossed  the  line  of  demarcation  between  what  he 
had  heard  and  what  he  himself  composed. 

III.  We  here  reach  the  most  difficult  side  of  the  question  with  which 
we  have  to  do.  We  possess  in  the  first  three  Gospels  three  documents, 
perfectly  harmonious  and  of  undisputed  value,  containing  the  teachings 
of  Jesus.  These  teachings  appear  therein  in  a  simple,  popular,  practical 
form ;  they  are  what  they  must  have  been  in  order  to  charm  the  multi- 
tudes and  win  their  assent.  How  could  the  abstruse  and  theological  dis- 
courses of  the  fourth  Gospel  have  proceeded  from  the  same  mind  and  the 
same  lips  ?  "  We  must  choose,"  says  Renan  :  "  if  Jesus  spoke  as  Matthew 
would  have  Him,  He  could  not  have  spoken  as  John  would  have  Him." 
"*  Now,"  he  adds,  "  between  the  two  authorities  no  critic  has  hesitated,  or 
will  hesitate." 

Is  the  contrast  thus  indicated  really  as  inexplicable  as  is  asserted  ?  It 
is  to  the  study  of  this  question  that  we  are  going  to  devote  the  following 
pages. 

As  to  the  contents  of  the  teachings,  three  points,  especially,  appear  to 
distinguish  the  discourses  of  John  from  those  of  the  Synoptics :  1.  The 


CHARACTERISTICS — THE   DISCOURSES.  109 

difference  in  the  part  assigned  to  the  person  of  Jesus  in  the  matter  of 
salvation;  2.  The  Johannean  notion  of  the  existence  of  Jesus,  as  a  divine 
being,  anterior  to  His  earthly  life;  8.  The  omission  in  John  of  every 
expression  relating  to  His  visible  return,  as  judge  of  the  world. 

With  regard  to  the  part  of  Jesus  in  the  matter  of  salvation,  it  is  alleged 
that,  while  the  Christ  of  the  Synoptics  simply  announces  the  kingdom  of 
God — the  good  tidings  of  the  near  coming  of  that  glorious  state  of  things, — 
the  Christ  of  John  can  only  preach  Himself,  and  tell  what  He  is  as  related 
to  God  and  what  He  is  as  related  to  the  world.  While  the  Synoptic  teach- 
ings bear  upon  the  most  varied  moral  obligations,  beneheence,  humility, 
veracity,  detachment  from  the  world,  watchfulness,  prayer — in  a  word, 
upon  the  righteousness  of  the  kingdom,  according  to  the  expression  of  Jesus 
Himself, — in  John,  on  the  contrary,  every  duty  is  reduced  to  the  attach- 
ing of  oneself  to  that  being  come  from  heaven,  in  whom  God  reveals 
and  gives  Himself.  In  the  Synoptics,  Jesus  is  the  preacher  of  salvation ; 
in  John,  He  is  salvation  itself,  eternal  life,  everything. 

Is  the  difference  thus  pointed  out  as  considerable  as  it  is  said  to  be,  and 
is  the  contrast  inexplicable  ?  No,  this  cannot  be ;  for  the  central  position 
which  the  person  of  Christ  occupies  in  the  Johannean  teaching  is  also 
decidedly  ascribed  to  Him  in  that  of  the  first  three  Gospels.  The  moral 
precepts  which  Jesus  gives  in  the  latter  are  placed  in  intimate  relation 
with  His  own  person ;  and  among  the  duties  of  human  life,  that  which 
takes  precedence  of  all  the  rest  is,  in  them  as  in  John,  faith  in  Christ  the 
indispensable  condition  of  salvation.     Let  the  reader  judge  for  himself. 

"Sell  that  thou  hast  and  give  to  the  poor  .  .  .  ,  then  follow  me"  says 
Jesus  to  the  rich  young  man  (Matt.  xix.  21).  The  second  of  these  com- 
mands explains  the  first;  the  one  is  the  condition,  the  other  the  end.. 
"Verily  I  say  unto  you  that,  inasmuch  as  ye  have  done  it  unto  one  of  these 
my  brethren,  ye  have  done  it  unto  me"  (Matt.  xxv.  40).  It  is  the  sympa- 
thy for  Him,  Jesus,  which  constitutes  the  worth  of  this  help,  and  which  is, 
if  we  may  so  speak,  the  good  work  in  the  good  work  (comp.  x.  42).  Jesus 
adds  (xxv.  41),  as  He  turns  towards  the  condemned :  "  Depart  from  me,  ye 
cursed!"  Perdition  is  the  rupture  of  all  union  with  Him.  To  receive 
Him  is  to  receive  God,  He  declares  to  His  disciples  (Matt.  x.  40).  The 
most  indisputable  proof  that  one  possesses  the  humble  disposition  which 
is  necessary  in  order  to  enter  into  the  kingdom,  is  that  of  receiving  a  child 
in  the  name  of  Jesus;  that  is,  as  if  one  were  receiving  Jesus  Himself;  and 
the  offense  which  will  infallibly  destroy  him  who  has  the  unhappiness  to 
occasion  it,  is  this — that  it  is  caused  to  one  of  these  little  ones  who  believe  in 
Him  (Matt,  xviii.  5,  6) ;  so  true  is  it  that  the  good  in  the  good  is  love  for 
Him,  and  the  crime  in  the  crime  is  the  evil  which  one  does  to  Him.  The 
infallibly  efficacious  prayer  is  that  of  two  or  three  persons  praying  in  His 
name  (Matt,  xviii.  20).  Real  watchfulness  consists  in  waiting  for  Him,  the 
returning  Lord,  and  the  condition  of  the  entrance  with  Him  into  His  glory 
is  the  being  ready  to  receive  Him  at  His  coming  (Luke  xii.  3G).  If  the 
foolish  virgins  are  rejected,  it  is  for  not  having  fulfilled  their  duty  towards 
Him  (Matt.  xxv.  12).    To  confess  Him  here  below  is  the  way  to  be  ac- 


110  BOOK   II.      THE   GOSPEL. 

knowledged  by  Him  above,  as  also  to  deny  Him  is  to  pronounce  one's  own 
sentence  (Matt.  x.  32,  33;  Mark  viii.  38).  The  most  intimate  and  sacred 
relations  of  human  life  must  remain  constantly  subordinated  to  the  bond 
which  unites  the  believer  to  Jesus,  so  that  the  believer  must  be  ready  to 
break  them,  "to  hate  father,  mother,  child,  wife,  his  own  life,"  if  the  su- 
preme bond  requires  this  sacrifice  (Matt.  x.  37).  Otherwise  one  would  not 
be  worthy  of  Him,  which  is  equivalent  to  being  ranked  among  the  workers  of 
iniquity,  and  being  excluded  with  them  (Matt.  vii.  23;  xxv.  12).  Not  to 
have  turned  to  account  the  gifts  entrusted  by  Him  for  working  in  His 
cause,  for  increasing  His  wealth  here  below, — to  have  been  His  unprofitable 
servant, — this  is  enough  f,o  cause  one  to  be  cast  into  the  outer  darkness, 
where  there  are  only  weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth  (Matt.  xxv.  30).  The 
most  decisive  act  of  the  moral  life,  the  indispensable  condition  to  being 
able  to  find  one's  life  again  in  the  future, — to  give  oneself,  to  lose  oneself — 
this  act  can  be  accomplished  only  for  His  sake  (Matt.  x.  39).  Could  Jesus 
describe  otherwise  the  relation  of  man  to  God  Himself? 

There  is  one  fact  in  the  Gospel  history  omitted  by  John,  but  preserved 
by  the  three  Synoptics,  which  shows,  more  clearly  than  all  the  sayings  can 
do,  how  Jesus  really  made  the  whole  religious  and  moral  life  of  His  own 
consist  in  personal  union  with  Himself.  It  is  the  institution  of  the  Holy 
Supper,  together  with  those  two  declarations  which  explain  it:  "This  is 
my  blood  which  is  shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins;"  and,  "The 
Son  of  Man  came  to  give  His  life  a  ransom  for  many  "  (Matt.  xxvi.  28;  xx. 
28).  To  incorporate  Jesus  into  oneself,  is  to  appropriate  life  to  oneself. 
Jesus  is  not  only  the  preacher  of  salvation ;  He  is  also,  as  in  John,  salvation 
itself.  The  part  of  Jesus  in  the  matter  of  salvation,  therefore,  does  not 
fundamentally  differ  in  the  two  teachings ;  and  so  the  Church  has  never 
experimentally  felt  the  contrast  indicated.  Herein  only,  as  it  seems  to 
me,  is  the  difference  and  its  origin.  The  Synoptics,  with  a  partiality  for 
them — we  have  seen  the  reason  of  this — traced  out  the  popular  and  daily 
preachings  of  Jesus,  in  which  He  sought  to  awaken  the  moral  life  of  His 
hearers  and  to  stimulate  the  spiritual  instincts  which  alone  could  lead  them 
to  Him.  Now,  these  hearers  were  Jews,  brought  up  from  infancy  in  the 
expectation  of  the  Messianic  Kingdom.  Jesus,  like  John  the  Baptist,  takes, 
therefore,  this  glorious  hope  for  the  starting-point  of  His  teaching,  while 
endeavoring  to  spiritualize  it  and  to  set  forth  holiness  as  the  essential  char- 
acteristic of  that  future  state  of  things.  With  this  purpose,  He  emphasizes 
forcibly  the  moral  qualities  which  its  members  must  possess.  But  this  was 
only  the  propaedeutic  and  elementary  teaching,  the  general  basis  (which 
was  common  to  Him  with  the  law  and  the  prophets)  of  the  special  and 
truly  new  preaching  which  He  brought  to  the  world.  This  preaching  had 
reference  to  the  part  played  by  His  person  in  the  work  of  salvation  and  hi 
the  establishment  of  the  kingdom.  And  when  He  comes  to  this  subject 
in  the  Synoptics,  He  insists,  no  less  than  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  on  the  vital 
importance  of  faith  in  Him,  and  on  the  concentration  of  salvation  in  His 
person  and  work.  Without  the  first  form  of  teaching,  He  would  have 
found  His  hearers  only  deaf.    Without  the  second,  He  would  never  have 


CHARACTERISTICS — TIIE   DISCOURSES.  Ill 

carried  them  on  to  the  point  to  which  He  desired  to  raise  them.  While 
describing  to  us  particularly  the  first,  the  Synoptics  have  nevertheless 
faithfully  preserved  the  second ;  and  it  is  in  this  that  we  especially  dis- 
cover, as  we  have  just  now  done,  the  common  matter,  as  between  them  and 
John. 

But  there  is  a  point  on  which  the  fourth  Gospel  seems  to  pass  decidedly 
beyond  the  contents  of  the  Synoptic  teaching.  It  is  that  of  the  divine 
pre-existence  of  Jesus.  Must  we  recognize  here  an  idea  imported  by  the 
author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  into  the  Lord's  teaching,  or  should  we  re- 
gard this  notion  as  a  real  element  in  the  testimony  of  Jesus  respecting 
Himself? 

Three  sayings,  in  the  Gospel  of  John,  in  particular,  evidently  contain 
this  notion :  "  What  will  happen  when  you  shall  see  the  Son  of  man 
ascending  up  where  he  was  before  "  (vi.  62).  "  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto 
you,  Before  Abraham  was,  I  am  "  (viii.  5S).  "  And  now,  Father,  glorify 
thou  me  with  thyself,  with  the  glory  which  I  had  u'ith  thee  before  the  world 
was  "  (xvii.  5) ;  or  indeed,  as  Jesus  says  in  ver.  24,  "  because  thou  lovedst 
me  before  the  foundation  of  the  world."  Beyschlag,  Weizsiicker,  Ritschl, 
and  others  attempt  to  give  to  this  pre-existence  only  an  ideal  sense : 
Jesus  felt  and  recognized  Himself  as  the  man  whom  God  had  from 
eternity  foreseen,  loved,  chosen,  and  destined  to  be  the  Saviour  of  man- 
kind, and  the  feeling  of  this  eternal  predestination  formulated  itself  in 
Him  as  the  consciousness  of  His  personal  pre-existence.  But  this  attempt 
at  explanation  stops  far  short  of  the  meaning  of  the  words  which  we  have 
just  quoted.  "  Where  He  was  before  "  can  only  designate  an  existence  as 
real,  as  personal,  as  the  present  existence  of  Him  who  thus  speaks.  And 
in  the  other  two  declarations,  the  comparison  with  Abraham  ("  before 
Abraham  was,"  literally,  became,  yevkadai),  and  with  the  world  ("  before  the 
world  was  "),  two  perfectly  real  beings,  does  not  allow  us  to  ascribe  to  Him 
who  is  compared  with  them,  in  the  point  of  precedence,  a  less  real  exist- 
ence than  theirs.  The  sole  question,  consequently,  is  whether  Jesus 
Himself  spoke  in  this  way,  or  whether  some  other  person  attributed  to 
Him  such  assertions. 

Let  us,  first  of  all,  recall  to  mind  the  fact  that  the  idea  of  the  divinity 
of  the  Messiah  was  one  of  the  fundamental  points  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
prophets.  Only  an  exegesis  thoroughly  determined  not  to  bow  before  the 
texts  can  deny  this.  If  the  critics  will  have  it  so,  we  will  not  insist  upon 
the  second  Psalm,  although,  according  to  our  conviction,  the  words : 
"  Thou  art  my  Son,"  and  these  :  "  Kiss  the  Son,"  cannot  denote  anything 
else  than  the  participation  of  the  Messiah  in  the  divine  existence,  and  the 
obligation  on  the  part  of  men  to  worship  Him.  But  what  cannot  be 
denied  is  the  titles  of  Mighty  God  and  Eternal  Father  which  Isaiah  gives  to 
"the  child  who  is  born  to  us"  (ix.  5)  ;  the  contrast  which  Micah  institutes 
(v.  2)  between  the  earthly  birth  of  the  ruler  of  Israel,  at  Bethlehem,  and 
His  higher  origin  which  is  from  eternity  ;  the  identification,  in  Zechariah, 
of  Jehovah  with  the  suffering  Messiah,  in  that  expression  which  is  tortured 
in  yain:    "They  shall  look  on  me  whom  they  have  pierced "  (xii.  10); 


112  BOOK   II.      THE   GOSPEL. 

finally  and  above  all,  that  promise  which  Malaehi  puts  in  the  mouth — of 
whom '?  of  Jehovah  or  of  the  Messiah  ?  evidently  of  both,  since  it  iden- 
tities them,  as  we  have  already  seen  :  "  Behold,  I  send  my  messenger  (the 
forerunner),  and  he  shall  prepare  the  way  before  vie,  and  the  Lord  whom 
ye  seek,  the  angel  of  the  covenant  whom  ye  desire,  shall  suddenly  enter 
into  his  temple ;  behold,  he  cometh,  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts  "  (hi.  1).  The 
coming  of  the  Messiah  is  the  coming  of  the  Lord,  of  Adonai,  a  name 
which  is  given  only  to  God ;  it  is  the  coming  of  the  angel  of  the  covenant, 
of  that  angel  of  the  Lord  of  whom  the  Pentateuch  speaks  many  times, 
and  whom  Isaiah  calls  "  the  angel  of  his  presence  "  (lxiii.  9),  of  that 
mysterious  being  in  whom  the  Lord  appears,  ever  since  the  earliest  times, 
when  He  wishes  to  manifest  Himself  in   a  manner  apprehensible  to 

I  the  senses,  and  of  whom  God  says  (Num.  xxiii.  21):  "My  name  (my  mani- 
fested essence)  is  in  Him."  It  is  this  mysterious  being  who,  in  these 
words  of  Malaehi — which  may  be  called  the  culminating  point  of  Messianic 
prophecy — declares  Himself  to  be  at  once  the  Messiah  who  is  to  follow  the 
forerunner  and  the  God  who  sends  Him,  and  who  is  worshiped  at  Jeru- 
salem. And  let  it  not  be  said  that  we  put  into  this  passage  things  which 
are  not  in  it,  or  which,  at  least,  were  not  yet  seen  in  it  in  the  time  of 
Jesus.  We  have  already  had  the  proof  of  the  contrary.  That  saying  of 
John  the  Baptist :  "  He  who  cometh  after  me  was  before  me,"  was  derived 
by  him  from  this  source  through  the  illumination  of  the  Spirit.  But  we 
possess  yet  another  proof— it  is  the  words  which  Luke  puts  into  the 
mouth  of  the  angel,  when  he  announces  to  Zachariah  the  birth  of  John 
the  Baptist :  "  He  (John)  shall  turn  many  of  the  children  of  Israel  to  the 
Lord  their  God,  and  he  shall  go  before  him  in  the  spirit  and  power  of  Elijah, 
to  turn  the  hearts  of  the  fathers  to  the  children.  .  .  ."  He  shall  go  be- 
fore him  .  .  .  Before  whom  ?  The  preceding  words  say  expressly :  "  before 
the  Lord,  their  God."  And  if  we  could  doubt  that  these  words  are  a  repro- 
duction of  those  of  Malaehi,  this  doubt  would  fall  away  before  the  follow- 
ing words  :  "  in  the  spirit  and  power  of  Elijah,"  which  are  literally  taken 
from  the  following  chapter  of  the  same  prophet  (iv.  5,  6).  No  man  in 
Israel,  therefore,  to  whom  the  prophecies  were  familiar,  could  refuse  to 
ascribe  to  the  person  of  the  Messiah  a  superhuman  nature.  There  would 
be,  consequently,  even  from  the  natural  point  of  view,  nothing  surprising 
in  the  fact  that  Jesus,  who  proclaimed  Himself  the  Messiah,  should,  at 
the  same  time,  have  affirmed  His  divine  pre-existence. 

A  second  instructive  fact  presents  itself  to  us  in  the  New  Testament. 
The  pre-existence  of  Christ  is  not  only  taught  in  the  discourses  of  John ;  it 
is  taught  in  the  epistles  of  Paul.  According  to  1  Cor.  viii.  6,  as  according 
to  John's  prologue,  it  is  Christ  who  created  all  things.  According  to  the 
same  epistle,  x.  4,  the  invisible  rock  which  led  Israel  in  the  wilderness,  and 
which  delivered  Israel,  was  Christ.  According  to  Col.  i.  15-17,  He  is  "the 
first-born  before  the  whole  creation;"  He  is  "before  all  things;"  it  is  "by 
Him  that  all  things  are  created,  the  heavenly  and  the  earthly;  all  is  by 
Him  and  for  Him,  all  subsists  in  Him."  And  it  is  not  only  St.  Paul 
who  enunciates  this  idea.    The  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  which,  by  its  desti- 


CHARACTERISTICS — THE   DISCOURSES.  113 

nation  even,  testifies  to  the  faith  of  the  primitive  Palestinian  Church,1 
declares  that  it  is  Christ  who  made  the  world,  whom  the  angels  worship, 
who  laid  the  foundations  of  the  earth  and  the  heavens,  who  is  always  the 
same,  and  is  as  much  more  exalted  than  Moses  as  the  one  who  has  built 
the  house  is  greater  than  the  house  itself  (i.  2,  6, 10, 12;  hi.  3).  More  than 
this :  the  same  idea  is  found  again  in  the  Apocalypse,  that  Judaizing  book 
as  it  is  claimed.  Jesus  is  therein,  as  Jehovah  Himself  is  in  Isaiah,  called 
the  first  and  the  last;  that  is  to  say,  as  the  author  himself  explains  it,  the 
beginning  and  the  end  (iipxv  Kal.reXoc)  of  the  whole  creation;2  all  creatures 
fall  down  before  the  Lamb  seated  on  the  throne,  as  well  as  before  the 
Father.  It  is  not  then  either  to  any  individual  (whether  the  true,  or  the 
pseudo-John),  or  to  any  school  (that  of  Ephesus),  or  to  any  semi-Gnostic 
party,  or  to  any  Church  of  Asia  Minor,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  divinity 
and  pre-existence  of  the  Christ  belongs ;  it  is  to  the  Church  represented  in 
all  its  parts  by  the  authors  and  the  readers  of  the  writings  which  we  have 
just  quoted.3  If  it  is  so,  this  idea,  so  generally  received,  of  the  person  of 
Christ  must  have  rested  upon  positive  testimonies  which  proceeded  from 
the  mouth  of  Jesus,  such  as  those  which  we  find  in  the  fourth  Gospel. 

The  first  three  Gospels  themselves,  far  from  contradicting  this  result, 
confirm  it.  We  have  already  shown  that  these  writings  attribute  to  the 
person  of  Christ  absolutely  the  same  central  position,  as  related  to  the  hu- 
man soul,  which  the  Old  Testament  ascribes  to  God.  For  whom  were  ab- 
solute trust  and  love  reserved  by  Moses  and  the  prophets?  Jesus  claims 
them  for  Himself  in  the  Synoptics,  and  this  even  in  the  name  of  our  sal- 
vation. Would  Jewish  monotheism,  which  was  so  strict  and  so  jealous  of 
the  rights  of  God,  have  permitted  Jesus  to  take  a  position  like  this,  if  He 
had  not  had  the  distinct  consciousness  that  in  the  background  of  His  hu- 
man existence  there  was  a  divine  personality  ?  He  cannot,  as  a  faithful 
Jew,  wish  to  be  for  us  that  which  in  the  Synoptics  He  asks  to  be,  except  so 
far  as  He  is  what  He  declares  Himself  to  be  in  John.4 

A  large  number  of  particular  facts  in  the  same  writings  add  their  force 
to  this  general  conclusion.  We  have  just  seen  how,  in  Luke,  He  who  comes 
after  the  forerunner  is  called,  in  the  preceding  words,  the  Lord  their  God.   In 

1  We  cannot  allow  any  critical  probability  taught  respecting  the  person  of  Jesus  a  doc- 

to  the  opinion  which  seeks  in  Italy  or  in  any  trine  according  to  which  He  was  the  Son  of 

other  country  than  Palestine  the  persons  to  God  who  had  come  from  heaven   to  renew 

whom  this  epistle  was  addressed.  mankind,  the  one  whom  God  made  use  of  as 

»i.  17;  ii.  8;  xxii.  13.    Hilgenfeld  claims  that  His  instrument  ID  the  creation  of  the  world, 

the  Jesus  of  the  Apocalypse  is  only  the  first  And  we  do  not  find  any  trace  of  an  opposition 

created  among  the  angels  (iii.  14).    Rutcomp.  which  this  teaching  had  encountered  in  the 

xxii.  9,  lfi,  which   positively  excludes  this  primitive  aposfoNe  circles, and  which  gavo  it 

idea;  xxii.  11  proves  that  apxv,  >>'•  14,  Blgni-  the  character  of  a  peculiar  view." 

fies   not  beginning,  but  origin,  unless  tc'Aos  *8ehultz  writes  these  words  in  his  recent 

must  signify  that  Jesus  is  the  end  of  the  ex-  work  on  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ:  "The 

istenee  of  the  universe,  in  the  sense  of  de  sentiment  of  religious  dependence  is  not  ad- 

llartmannl  missible  except  before  the. only  true  God .. . 

3  Here  is  what  Weizsacker  himself  says  (p.  We  should  not  how  religiously  except  before 

222):  "At  the  time  when  the  primitive  apos-  that  which  is  really  divine."    {Die  Lchre  von 

tolic   tradition  was    still    represented    by  a  dcr  Guttkcit  Christi,  pp.  04o,  511.) 
whole  series  of  witnesses,  the  Apostle  Paul 


114  BOOK   II.      THE   GOSPEL. 

Mark,  the  person  of  the  Son  is  placed  even  above  the  most  exalted  crea- 
tures: "Of  that  day  knovveth  no  one,  not  even  the  angels  who  are  in  hea- 
ven, nor  even  the  Son  [during  the  time  of  His  humiliation],  but  the  Father 
only  "  (xiii.  32).  In  Matthew,  the  Son  is  placed  between  the  Father  and 
the  Holy  Spirit,  the  breath  of  God :  "  Baptize  all  the  nations  in  the  name 
of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit"  (xxviii.  19).  In  the 
parable  of  the  vine-dressers,  Jesus  Himself  represents  Himself,  in  contrast 
with  the  servants  sent  before  Him,  as  the  son  and  heir  of  the  Master  of  the 
vineyard  (Matt.  xxi.  37,  38).  It  will  be  in  vain  to  subject  the  question  of 
Jesus  (Matt.  xxii.  45) :  "  If  David  calls  the  Christ  his  Lord,  how  is  he  his 
son?"  to  all  imaginable  manipulations;  the  thought  of  Jesus  will  ever 
come  forth  simple  and  clear  for  him  who  does  not  try  to  find  difficulties 
where  there  are  none.  If,  on  one  side,  the  Christ  is  the  son  of  David  by 
His  earthly  origin,  on  the  other  side  He  is,  nevertheless,  his  Lord,  in  virtue 
of  His  divine  personality.  This  is  what  Micah  had  said  already  (v.  2).  And 
how,  if  He  did  not  have  the  consciousness  of  His  divinity,  could  'Jesus 
speak  of  His  angels  (Matt.  xiii.  41),  of  His  glory  (xxv.  31),  finally,  of  His 
name  under  the  invocation  of  which  believers  are  gathered  together?  The 
Old  Testament  did  not  authorize  any  creature  thus  to  appropriate  to  him- 
self the  attributes  of  Jehovah.  Now  the  notion  of  His  pre-existence  was 
for  Jesus  implicitly  included  in  that  of  His  divinity. 

Undoubtedly,  we  do  not  find  in  the  Synoptics  any  declaration  as  precise 
as  those  which  we  have' just  now  quoted  from  the  Johannean  discourses. 
But  do  we  not  discover  in  the  Gospel  of  Luke  the  immense  quantity  of, 
materials  which  would  be  entirely  wanting  to  us  if  we  possessed  only  those 
of  Matthew  and'  Mark ;  for  example,  the  three  parables  of  grace  (Luke 
xv. ;  the  lost  sheep,  the  lost  drachma,  the  prodigal  son) ;  those  of  the  unfaith- 
ful steward  and  of  the  wicked  rich  man  (Luke  xvi.) ;  those  of  the  unjust 
judge,  and  of  the  publican  and  the  Pharisee  (Luke  xviii.);  the  story  of 
Zaccha3us;  the  incident  of  the  converted  thief,  and  so  many  other  treasures 
which  Luke  has  rescued  from  the  oblivion  where  the  other  redactions  of 
the  tradition  had  left  them,  and  which  he  alone  has  preserved  to  the 
Church  ?  How,  then,  can  we  make  of  the  omission  of  these  few  sayings  in 
our  first  three  Gospels  an  argument  against  their  authenticity?  If  pictures 
so  impressive,  narratives  so  popular,  as  those  which  we  have  just  recalled 
had  not  entered  into  the  oral  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  or  into  any  of  its 
written  redactions,  how  much  more  easily  could  three  or  four  expressions 
of  a  very  elevated  and  profoundly  mysterious  character  have  been  oblit- 
erated from  the  tradition,  to  reappear  later  as  the  reminiscences  of  a  hearer 
who  was  particularly  attentive  to  everything  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus  which 
concerned  His  person?  The  dogmatic  interest  which  these  declarations 
have  for  us  did  not  exist  to  the  same  degree  at  that  time;  for  the  impres- 
sion of  the  person  of  Jesus,  contemplated  daily  in  its  living  fullness,  filled 
all  hearts  and  supplied  all  special  vacancies.  Let  us  not  forget,  moreover, 
that  of  these  three  sayings  one  is  found  in  the  discourse  which  follows  the 
multiplication  of  the  loaves,  a  discourse  which  the  Synoptics  omit  alto- 
gether ;  the  second,  in  a  discourse  pronounced  at  Jerusalem,  and  which  is 


CHARACTERISTICS — THE   DISCOURSES.  115 

likewise  omitted  in  them,  together  with  the  entire  visit  of  which  it  forms 
a  part;  the  third,  in  the  sacerdotal  prayer  of  which  they  have  also  given 
no  report.  As  to  John,  according  to  his  plan  he  must  necessarily  call 
them  to  mind,  if  he  wished,  as  appears  from  xx.  30,  31,  to  give  an  account 
of  the  signs  by  which  he  had  recognized  in  Jesus  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God, 
and  which  might  contribute  to  produce  the  same  assurance  of  faith  in  his 
readers.  These  culminating  points  of  the  testimony  of  Jesus  respecting 
His  person  could  not  be  wanting  in  such  a  picture. 

There  remains  the  difference  in  the  eachatological  ideas.  In  the  Synoptics, 
a  visible  return  of  the  Lord,  a  final  external  judgment,  a  bodily  resurrection 
of  believers,  a  reign  of  glory;  in  John,  no  other  return  of  Christ  than  His 
coming  into  the  hearts  in  the  form  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  no  other  resurrec- 
tion than  that  of  the  soul  through  regeneration  ;  no  other  judgment  than 
the  separation  which  is  effected  between  believers  and  unbelievers  through 
the  preaching  of  the  Gospel ;  no  other  reign  than  the  life  of  the  believer 
in  Christ  and  in  God.  "  This  entire  Gospel  is  planned,"  says  Hilgenfeld, 
"  so  as  to  present  the  historical  coming  of  Christ  as  His  only  appearance 
on  the  earth."1 — But  is  this  exclusive  spiritualism  which  is  attributed  to 
the  fourth  Gospel  indeed  a  reality  ?  John  certainly  emphasizes  the  return 
of  Jesus  in  the  spirit.  But  is  this  in  order  wholly  to  supersede  and  to  deny 
His  visible  return  ?  No,  according  to  him,  the  first  is  the  preparation  for 
the  second :  "  I  will  come  again,"  here  is  the  spiritual  return.  Then  he 
adds :  "And  I  will  take  you  unto  myself,  that  where  I  am  (in  my  Father's 
house,  where  there  are  many  mansions,  and  where  Jesus  Himself  is  now 
going),  you  may  be  also  with  me,"  xiv.  3 ;  here  is,  in  some  sense,  a  consum- 
mation. "If  I  will  that  he  tarry  till  I  come,  what  is  that  to  thee?"  (xxi. 
23.)  And  in  the  first  epistle :  "  My  little  children,  abide  in  Him,  to  the 
end  that,  when  he  shall  appear,  we  may  have  boldness"  (ii.  28).  "We 
know  that,  when  he  shall  appear,  we  shall  be  like  him  "  (iii.  3). — The 
spiritual  judgment  which  John  teaches  is  likewise,  according  to  him,  the 
preparation  for  the  external  judgment  in  which  the  economy  of  grace  will 
end.  "  It  is  not  I  who  will  accuse  you  before  the  Father,  it  is  Moses  in 
whom  you  hope."  "  The  hour  is  coming  in  which  all  who  are  in  the 
tombs  shall  hear  the  voice  of  the  Son  of  man,  and  shall  come  forth  ;  those 
who  have  done  good,  to  a  resurrection  of  life ;  those  who  have  done  evil, 
to  a  resurrection  of  judgment "  (v.  45  and  28,  29).  Here,  surely,  an  exter- 
nal judgment  and  a  bodily  resurrection  are  duly  proclaimed.  Scholten 
thinks,  it  is  true,  that  these  verses  must  be  an  interpolation.  For  what 
reason?  They  are  not  wanting  in  any  manuscript,  in  any  version.  No; 
but  the  critic  has  decreed  a  priori  what  the  fourth  Gospel  must  be  in  order 
that  it  may  be  the  antipode  of  the  other  three.  And  as  these  verses  pre- 
sent an  obstacle  to  this  sovereign  decision  of  his  criticism,  he  takes  his 
scissors  and  cuts  them  out.  This  is  what  at  the  present  time  is  called 
scirnce.  Moreover,  little  is  gained  by  these  violent  proceedings.  Four 
times  successively  in  chap,  vi.,  indeed,  Jesus  returns  to  these  troublesome 

» Einl.,  p.  728. 


116  BOOK   II.      THE  GOSPEL. 

facts  of  the  last  day  and  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  :  "  That  I  may  not 
lose  anything  of  what  the  Father  hath  given  me,  but  that  I  may  raise  it 
up  at  the  last  day"  (ver.  39);  "that  whosoever  beholdeth  the  Son  and 
believeth  on  Him  may  have  eternal  life,  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last 
day  "  (ver.  40) ;  "  no  man  can  come  unto  me,  except  the  Father  draw 
him ;  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day  "  (ver.  44) ;  "  he  who  eateth 
my  flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood  .  .  . ;  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day  " 
(ver.  54).  It  will  be  confessed  that  considerable  boldness  is  needed  to 
maintain  that  a  book,  in  which  such  a  series  of  affirmations  is  found,  does 
not  teach  either  a  last  judgment  or  the  resurrection  of  the  body.  But 
the  critics  count,  and  unfortunately  with  good  reason,  upon  a  public  which 
does  not  examine  critically. 

The  truth  is  that,  in  conformity  with  his  custom,  the  author  of  the 
fourth  Gospel  speaks  less  of  external  results  than  of  spiritual  preparations, 
because  the  popular  preaching,  arid  as  a  consequence  the  Synoptics,  did 
just  the  reverse.  Without  omitting  the  coming  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and 
His  action  in  the  heart  (Luke  xxiv.  48,  49  ;  Matt,  xxviii.  19 ;  Luke  xii.  11, 
12,  etc.),  the  first  Gospels  had  transmitted  to  the  Church,  in  all  its  details, 
the  teaching  of  Jesus  respecting  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  His 
visible  return  at  the  end  of  time  (Matt,  xxiv.,  Mark  xiii.,  Luke  xxi.  and 
xvii.).  John  had  nothing  to  add  on  these  various  points.  As  for  ourselves, 
in  reading  the  conclusions  which  the  critics  draw  from  his  silence,  we  cannot 
conceal  a  feeling  of  astonishment ;  here  are  men  who  maintain  that  the 
great  discourse  of  Jesus  on  the  end  of  time,  in  the  Synoptics,  was  never 
spoken  by  Him ;  that  it  is  only  a  composition  of  some  Jewish  or  Jewish- 
Christian  author  in  the  year  67  or  68 ;  and  the  same  men  dare  to  allege 
the  absence  in  John  of  this  unauthentic  discourse,  as  a  reason  against  the 
trustworthiness  of  this  Gospel!  Should  criticism  become  a  matter  of 
jugglery? 

It  is  impossible,  then,  to  detect  an  essential  difference,  that  is  to  say,  one 
bearing  on  the  matter  of  the  teaching,  between  the  Synoptics  and  the 
fourth  Gospel. 

But  what  is  to  be  thought  of  the  entirely  different  form  in  which 
Jesus  expresses  Himself  in  the  Johannean  discourses  and  the  Synoptic 
preachings?  Here,  brief  moral  maxims,  strongly  marked,  popular,  easy 
to  be  retained ;  -there,  discourses  of  a  lofty  and  in  a  sense  theological, 
import.  Here,  as  Keim  says,  "  the  jewel  of  the  parable ;  "  there,  not  a 
single  picture  of  this  kind.  In  a  word,  there  the  simple  and  practical 
spirit;  here  a  mystic,  exalted,  dreamy  hue. 

As  to  the  paral>!e,  it  is  in  fact  wanting  in  John,  at  least  in  the  form  in 
which  we  find  it  in  the  first  Gospels ;  but  we  must  recall  to  mind  the  fact, 
that  nothing  was  more  adapted  than  this  kind  of  discourse  to  form  the 
substance  of  the  popular  evangelization  in  the  earliest  times  of  the 
Church.  All  that  could  be  recalled  of  such  teachings  was,  therefore, 
successively  put  in  circulation  in  the  tradition,  and  passed  from  thence 
into  the  first  evangelical  writings.  What  could  have  been  the  object  of 
the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  in  suppressing  these  teachings  with  which 


CHARACTERISTICS — THE  DISCOURSES.  117 

he  must  have  been  acquainted,  and  which  would  have  given  credit  to  his 
book,  on  the  supposition  that  his  narrative  was  a  fiction  ?    But  if  he  was 
simply  recounting  the  history,  what  purpose  would  it  serve  to  repeat  that 
which  every  one  could  read  in  writings  which  were  already  within  the 
reach  of  all  ?    He  could  only  have  been  led  to  take  a  different  course  if 
the  parables  had  been  a  necessary  land-mark  in  the  history  of  the  apos- 
tolic faith  which  he  had  it  in  mind  to  describe ;  but  this  was  evidently  not 
the  case.     Moreover,  if  we  do  not  find  in  the  fourth  Gospel  the  parable  in , 
the  form  of  a  complete  story,  we  do  find  it  in  a  form  closely  allied  to  this,! 
that  of  allegory.1   Here  is  the  analogue  of  what  are  called,  in  the  Synoptics,) 
the  parables  of  the  leaven  or  of  the  grain  of  mustard-seed ;  thus,  the 
pictures  of  the  Shepherd,  the  Door,  and  the  Good  Shepherd  (chap,  x.),  or 
that  of  the  woman  who  suddenly  passes  from  the  excess  of  grief  to  that 
of  joy  (xvi.  21),  or  again  that  of  the  vine  and  the  branches  (xv.  1  ff.).     It; 
is  still  the  figurative  and  picturesque  language  of  Him  who,  in  the  first?, 
Gospels,  spoke  to  the  people  in  these  terms  :  "  What  went  ye  out  into  the  ■ 

wilderness  to  see?    A  reed  shaken  with  the  wind ?    (Matt.  xi.  7.)| 

This  question  very  nearly  recalls  the  saying  of  Jesus  in  our  Gospel  (v.  35) ; 
"John  was  a  lamp  which  shineth  and  burnetii ;  and  ye  were  willing  to  > 
rejoice  for  a  season  in  his  light."     Let  the  following  similitudes,  also,  be  I 
compared :  The  Spirit  is  like  the  wind  which  blows  where  it  wills,  and  the  I 
presence  of  which  we  know  only  because  we  hear  the  sound  of  it  (iii.  8).  ,' 
The  unbeliever  is  like  the  evil  doer  who  seeks  the  night  to  accomplish  his 
evil  works  (vv.  19,  20).     Spiritual  emancipation  is  the  formula  of  manu- ' 
mission  which  the  son  of  the  house  pronounces  upon  the  slaves  (viii.  36), 
etc.     Each  of  these  figures  is  a  parable  in  the  germ,  which  the  author 
could  have  developed  as  such,  if  only  he  had  wished  to  do  so. 

As  to  the  elevated,  mystical  character  of  the  discourses  of  Jesus,  the  lan- 
guage forms  a  contrast,  it  is  true,  with  the  simple,  lively,  piquant  cast  of  the 
Synoptic  discourses.  But  let  us  notice,  first  of  all,  that  this  contrast  has 
been  singularly  exaggerated.  Sabatier  himself  acknowledges  this :  "  A  com- 
parison of  these  discourses  with  those  of  the  Synoptics  proves  that,  at  the 
foundation,  the  difference  between  them  is  not  so  great  as  it  appears  to  be 
at  the  first  view."  How  can  we  fail  to  recognize  the  voice  which  strikes  us 
so  impressively  in  the  Synoptics,  in  those  brief  and  powerful  words  of  the 
Johannean  Christ,  which  seem  to  break  forth  from  the  depths  of  another 
world?  " My  Father  worketh  hitherto  and  I  also  work."  "Destroy  this 
temple,  and  I  will  raise  it  up  in  three  days."  "Apart  from  me  ye  can  do 
nothing."  "Except  the  grain  be  cast  into  the  earth  anddie.it  abideth 
alone;  but  if  it  die,  it  beareth  much  fruit."  "He  who  hath  seen  me,  hath 
seen  the  Father."  "The  prince  of  this  world  cometh,  but  he  hath  nothing 
in  me."  There  is  a  fact  which  is  beyond  dispute :  we  discover  at  least 
twenty-seven  sayings  of  Jesus  in  John  which  are  found  in  almost  exactly 

1  It  is  remarkable  that,  in  x.  C,  John  uses  for       employed  in  the  Synoptics  to  designate  the 
characterizing  this  kind  of  comparisons  the       parables  properly  so-called. 
same  word,  irapoi/iia,  which  is  so  frequently 


118 


BOOK   II.      THE  GOSPEL. 


the  same  form  in  the  Synoptics  (see  the  list  in  the  note).1  Very  well !  no 
one  can  maintain  that  these  sayings  in  the  least  degree  harmfully  affect 
either  the  texture  of  John's  text  or  that  of  the  Synoptic  text.  This  fact 
proves,  indeed,  that  the  difference  which  has  been  pointed  out  has  been 
singularly  exaggerated.  If,  in  fact,  sayings  of  such  an  original  cast  as  those 
of  Jesus  can,  simultaneously  and  without  surprising  us  in  the  least  degree, 
occupy  a  place  in  the  two  sorts  of  documents,  this  fact  proves  that  these 
documents  are  fundamentally  homogeneous. 

Several  expressions  are  especially  alleged  by  the  critics  which  belong  to 
John's  style  and  which  are  foreign  to  the  Synoptics, — for  example,  the 
terms  light  and  darkness;  or  expressions  in  use  in  the  latter  which  are 
wanting  in  the  former,  like  the  kingdom  of  heaven  (or  of  God),  for  which  John 
substitutes  the  less  Jewish  and  more  mystical  term  eternal  life.  But  the 
contrast  of  light  and  darkness  is  found,  also,  in  the  Synoptics,  as  witness 


1  John. 
ii.  19:  "Destroy  this  temple,  and  in  three 
days  I  will  raise  it  np." 


iii.  18:  "He  that  believeth  on  Him  is  not 
condemned:  but  he  that  believeth  not  is  con- 
demned already." 

iv.  44 :  "  For  Jesus  Himself  testified,  that  a 
prophet  hath  no  honour  in  his  own  coun- 
try." 

v.  8 :  "  Jesus  saith  unto  him,  Arise,  take  up 
thy  bed  and  walk:" 

vi.  20:  "It  is  I;  be  not  afraid." 

vi.  35 :  "  He  that  cometh  to  me  shall  not 
hunger;  and  he  that  believeth  on  me  shall 
never  thirst." 

vi.  37  :  "  All  that  the  Father  giveth  me  shall 

come  to  me;  and  him  that  cometh  to  me  I 

will  in  no  wise  cast  out." 

vi.  4G:  "Not  that  any  man  hath  seen  the 

i  Father,  save  He  which  is  from  God,  He  hath 

|  seen  the  Father."    Compare  i.  18:  "No  man 

;  hath  seen  God  at  any  time  ;  the  only-begotten 

I  Son,  which  is  in  tlie  bosom  of  the  Father,  He 

hath  declared  Him." 

xii.  8  :  "  For  the  poor  always  ye  have  with 
you ;  but  me  ye  have  not  always." 

xii.  25 :  "  He  that  loveth  his  life  loseth 
it;  and  he  that  hateth  his  life  in  this  world 
shall  keep  it  unto  life  eternal." 

xii.  27:  "Now  is  my  soul  troubled;  and 
what  shall  I  say  ?  Father,  save  me  from  this 
I' hour;  but  for  thi9  cause  came  I  unto  this 
hour." 

xiii.  3:  "Jesus  knowing  that  the  Father 
had  given  all  things  into  His  hands." 


The  Synoptics. 

Matt.  xxvi.  Gl  (xxvii.  40):  "This  man 
said,  I  am  able  to  destroy  the  temple  of  God, 
and  to  build  it  in  three  days"  (Mark  xiv.  58 
and  xv.  29). 

Mark  xvi.  16:  "He  that  believeth,  and  is 
baptized,  shall  be  saved ;  but  he  that  believeth 
not  shall  be  condemned." 

Matt.  xiii.  57:  "Jesus  said  unto  them,  A 
prophet  is  not  without  honour,  save  in  his  own 
country,  and  in  his  own  house"  (Mark  vi.  4 
and  Luke  iv.  24). 

Matt.  ix.  6:  "Arise,  take  up  thy  bed,  and 
go  unto  thine  house"  (Mark  ii.  9;  Luke  v. 
24). 

Matt.  xiv.  27 :  "  It  is  I ;  be  not  afraid  "  (Mark 
vi.  50). 

Matt.  v.  6,  Luke  vi.  21 :  "  Blessed  are  they 
that  hunger  and  thirst:  for  they  shall  be 
filled." 

Matt.  xi.  28, 29  :  "  Come  unto  me,  all  ye  that 
labour  and  arc  heavy  laden  . . .  and  ye  shall 
find  rest  unto  your  souls." 

Matt.  xi.  27 :  "  No  man  knoweth  the  Son,  but 
the  Father;  neither  knoweth  any  mf.n  the 
Father,  save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever 
the  Son  will  reveal  him  "  (Luke  x.  22). 


Matt.  xxvi.  11 :  "  For  ye  have  the  poor  al- 
ways with  you  ;  but  me  ye  have  not  always" 
(Mark  xiv.  7). 

Matt.  x.  39:  "He  that  findeth  his  life  shall 
lose  it;  and  he  that  loseth  his  life  for  my  sake 
shall  find  it"  (xvi.25;  Markviii.35;  Luke  ix. 
24,  xvii.  33). 

Matt.  xxvi.  38:  "Then  saith  He  unto  them, 
My  soul  is  exceeding  sorrowful  even  unto 
death  "  (Mark  xiv.  34  rf.). 

Matt.  xi.  27 :  "  All  things  have  been  delivered 
unto  me  of  my  Father." 


CHARACTERISTICS — THE   DISCOURSES. 


119 


Luke  xi.  34-36  and  Matthew  vi.  22  and  23.  Is  it  not  already  very  common 
in  the  Old  Testament?  And  as  to  the  Johannean  expression  eternal  life,  it 
is  employed  in  the  Synoptics  as  the  equivalent  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  ab- 
solutely as  it  is  in  John.  We  call  to  witness  the  examples  quoted  in  the 
note,  which  have  been  very  happily  brought  forward  by  Beyschlag.1    John 


John. 

xiii.  10:  "Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  A 
servant  is  not  greater  than  his  lord;  neither 
one  that  is  sent  greater  than  he  that  sent 
him." 

xiii.  20  :  "  He  that  receiveth  whomsoever  I 
send,  receiveth  me ;  and  he  that  receiveth 
me,  receiveth  Him  that  sent  me." 

xiii.  21 :  "  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you, 
that  one  of  you  shall  betray  me." 

xiii. 38:  "Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee,  The 
cock  shall  not  crow,  till  thou  hast  denied  me 
thrice." 

xiv.  18:  "I  will  not  leave  you  desolate; 
I  will  come  to  you  ; "  and  23 :  "  We  will  make 
our  abode  with  him." 

xiv.  28:  "  My  Father  is  greater  than  I." 


xiv.  31 :  "  Arise,  let  us  go  hence." 
xv.  20 :  "  If  they  persecuted  me,  they  will 
also  persecute  you." 

xv.  21 :  "  But  all  these  things  will  they  do 
unto  you  for  my  name's  sake." 

xvi.  32:  "Behold,  the  hour  cometh,  yea,  is 
come,  that  ye  shall  be  scattered,  every  man 
to  his  own,  and  shall  leave  me  alone." 

xvii.  2:  "As  Thou  gavest  Him  authority 
over  all  flesh." 

xviii.  11 :  "  Put  up  the  sword  into  the 
sheath." 

xviii.  20 :  "I  ever  taught  in  synagogues,  and 
in  the  temple." 

xviii.  37 :  "  Pilate  therefore  said  unto  Him : 
Art  thou  a  king  then  ?  Jesus  answered,  Thou 
sayest  that  I  am  a  king.  To  this  end  have 
I  been  born." 

xx.  23 :  "  Whose  soever  sins  ye  forgive, 
they  are  forgiven  . . . ,"  etc. 


The  Synoptics. 
Matt.  x.  24:    "A  disciple  is  not  above  his] 
master,  nor  a  servant  above  his  lord." 


Matt.  x.  40;  "He  that  receiveth  you,  re- 
ceiveth me;  and  he  that  receiveth  me,  re 
ceiveth  Him  that  sent  me"  (Luke  x.  16). 

Matt.  xxvi.  21 :  "Verily  I  say  unto  you,  that 
one  of  you  shall  betray  me"  (Mark  xiv.  18). 

Matt.  xxvi.  34:  "Verily  I  say  unto  thee, 
that  this  night,  before  the  cock  crow,  thou 
shalt  deny  me  thrice"  (Mark  xiv.  30;  Luk« 
xxii.  34). 

Matt,  xxviii.  20 :  "  I  am  with  you  alway,  even 
unto  the  end  of  the  world." 


Mark  xiii.  32;  "That  day  knoweth  no  one, 
not  even  the  angels  which  are  in  heaven, 
neither  the  Son,  but  the  Father." 

Matt.  xxvi.  46:  "Arise,  let  us  be  going." 

Matt.  x.  2"> :  "  If  they  have  called  the  Master 
of  the  house  Beelzebub,  how  much  more  shall 
they  call  them  of  his  household." 

Matt.  x.  22:  "Ye  shall  be  hated  of  all  men 
for  my  name's  sake." 

Matt.  xxvi.  31:  "For  it  is  written,  I  will     ' 
smite  the  shepherd  and  the  sheep  of  the  flock 
shall  be  scattered  abroad." 

Matt,  xxviii.  18:  "All  authority  hath  been 
given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  on  earth." 

Matt.  xxvi.  52:  "Put  up  again  thy  sword 
into  its  place." 

Matt.  xxvi.  55:  "I  sat  daily  in  the  temple 
teaching." 

Matt,  xxvii.  11 :  "And  the  governor  asked 
him,  saying,  Art  thou  the  king  of  the  Jews?  (; 
And  Jesus  said  unto  him,  Thou  sayest." 

Matt,  xviii.  18  (xvi.  19):  "What  things 
soever  ye  shall  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound 
in  heaven  . . . ,"  etc. 


!The  two  verses  placed  in  parallel  lines  are  taken  in  each  case  from  the  same  Gospel  and 
from  the  same  narrative  : 


Matt,  xviii.  3 :  "  Ye  shall  not  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  heaven." 

Matt.  xix.  17 :  "  If  thou  wouldest  enter  into 
life." 

Matt.  xxv.  34 :  "  Inherit  the  kingdom  prepared 
for  you." 

Mark  ix.  45:  "It  is  good  for  thee  to  enter 
into  life." 


Matt,  xviii.  8:  "It  is  good  for  thee  to  en- 
ter into  life." 

Matt.  xix.  23:  "  It  is  hard  for  a  rich  man  to 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 

Matt.  xxv.  46 :  "  But  the  righteous  into  eter- 
nal life." 

Mark  ix.  47 :  "  It  is  good  for  thee  to  enter 
into  the  kingdom  of  God." 


120  BOOK   II.      THE   GOSPEL. 

moreover,  in  the  conversation  with  Nieodemus,  twice  uses  (iii.  3,  5)  the 
term  kingdom  of  God  (or  of  heaven,  in  the  Sinaitic  MS.). 

What  is  there  left,  after  all  this,  which  suffices  to  establish,  in  respect  to 
the  form,  an  insoluble  contrast  between  the  words  of  Jesus  in  John  and 
His  language  in  the  Synoptics?  A  certain. difference  remains;  I  do  not 
deny  this.  It  consists  in  that  altogether  peculiar  tone  of  holy  solemnity, 
and,  if  I  may  venture  to  speak  thus,  of  heavenly  suavity,  which  dis- 
tinguishes not  only  our  Gospel,  but  also  the  first  Epistle  of  John,  from  all 
the  other  products  of  human  thought,  and  which  makes  of  these  writings 
a  literature  by  itself;  with  this  difference,  however,  which  has  been  already 
pointed  out,  that,  while,  the  course  of  thought  is  steady  and  of  a  strictly 
logical  tenor  in  the  Gospel,  the  subjects  are  treated  in  the  epistles  in  a 
softer,  more  hesitating,  and  more  diffuse  way. — In  order  to  explain  the 
real  contrast  between  the  fourth  Gospel  and  the  preceding  ones,  we  must 
first  of  all,  as  we  have  seen,  take  into  account  the  influence  exercised  on 
the  form  of  the  discourses  by  the  peculiar  style  of  the  translator,  and  by 
the  work  of  condensation  which  was  the  condition  of  this  reproduction. 
But,  after  this,  there  is  still  left  a  certain,  in  some  sort,  irreducible  remnant, 
which  demands  a  separate  examination.  It  is  said  that  the  unexplained 
remainders  in  science  are  the  cause  of  great  discoveries.  We  are  not 
ambitious  of  making  a  great  discovery ;  but  we  would  like,  nevertheless, 
to  succeed  in  giving,  a  little  more  clearly  than  has  been  given  hitherto,  an 
account  of  the  difference  with  which  we  are  concerned. 

The  question  is  whether  this  particular  tone,  which  might  be  called  the 
Johannean  timbre,  was  foreign  to  Jesus,  in  such  a  degree  that  our  evan- 
gelist was  the  real  creator  of  it  and,  of  his  own  impulse,  attributed  it  to  the 
Saviour ;  or  whether  it  appertained  to  the  language  of  Jesus  Himself,  at 
I  least  in  certain  particular  moments  of  His  life.  We  have  seen  that  the 
\  scenes  related  in  our  Gospel  represent  only  a  score  of  days,  or  even  of 
\  moments,  distributed  over  an  activity  of  two  years  and  a  half.  And  it  is 
consequently  permitted  us  to  ask  whether  these  scenes,  chosen  evidently 
with  a  design,  did  not  have  an  exceptional  character  which  marked  them 
out  for  the  author's  choice.  He  has  made  a  selection  among  the  facts, 
that  is  certain,  and  himself  declares  this  (xx.  30,  31).  Why  might  he  not 
alsoJiave  made  one  among  the  discourses?  The  selection  in  this  case 
must  have  been  with  reference  to  the  design  of  his  work,  which  was  to 
show  that  "  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God."  If  it  is  so,  he  was  natu- 
rally obliged  to  choose,  from  among  the  numerous  teachings  of  Jesus,  the 
few  words  of  an  especially  elevated  character,  which  had,  most  of  all,  con- 
tributed to  make  him  understand  for  himself  the  sublime  richness  of  the 
being  whom  he  had  the  happiness  to  see  and  to  hear. 

We  have  an  expression  which  the  author  places  in  the  mouth  of  Jesus, 
and  according  to  which  Jesus  Himself  distinguished  between  two  sorts  of 
discourses  which  were  included  in  His  teaching.  He  says  to  Nieodemus, 
iii.  12:  "If  I  have  told  you  earthly  things  (™  tniyeia)  and  ye  believe  not, 
how  shall  ye  believe  when  I  tell  you  heavenly  things  (ra  eivovpavta.)?"  In 
expressing  Himself  thus,  Jesus  recalled  to  Nieodemus  the  teachings  which 


CHARACTERISTICS — THE   DISCOURSES.  121 

He  had  given  since  His  arrival  in  Jerusalem.  What  proved,  indeed,  that 
His  hearers  had  not  been  laid  hold  of  by  them  (had  not  believed),  is  the  fact 
that  Nicodemus  himself  was  able  to  put  forward,  as  the  proof  of  the  divine 
superiority  of  the  Lord's  teaching,  only  His  miracles  (ver.  2).  What  were 
those  teachings  of  Jesus,  in  which  He  spoke  of  earthly  things?  His 
preachings  in  Galilee,  such  as  we  rind  them  in  the  Synoptics,  may  give  us 
an  idea  of  them.  It  was  the  earth, — that  is,  human  life,  with  all  its  differ- 
ent obligations  and  relations — considered  from  the  heavenly  point  of  view. 
It  was,  for  example,  that  lofty  morality  which  we  find  developed  in  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount :  human  life  as  related  to  God.  But  from  this 
elementary  moral  teaching  Jesus  expressly  distinguishes  that  which  He 
calls  the  teaching  of  heavenly  things.  The  object  of  the  latter  is  no  longer 
the  earth  estimated  from  the  heavenly  point  of  view ;  it  is  heaven  itself 
with  its  infinite  richness.  This  heaven — Jesus  lived  in  it  continually  while 
acting  upon  the  earth.  He  says  this  Himself  in  the  following  verse :  "  No 
man  hath  ascended  to  heaven  but  he  who  came  down  from  heaven,  the 
.  Son  of  man  who  is  in  heaven  "  (ver.  13).  In  the  intimate  and  uninterrupted 
relation  which  He  sustained  to  the  Father,  He  had  access  here  below 
to  the  divine  thoughts,  to  the  eternal  purposes,  to  the  plan  of  salvation, 
and  He  was  able,  in  certain'  hours,  to  unfold  to  those  who  surrounded 
Him,  friends  or  enemies,  as  He  did  in  the  progress  of  this  nocturnal 
conversation  with  the  pious  councilor,  the  facts  appertaining  to  this  higher 
domain  of  the  heavenly  things.  He  would  not  have  fully  accomplished 
His  mission,  if  He  had  absolutely  concealed  from  the  world  what  He  was 
Himself  for  the  heart  of  His  Father,  and  what  His  Father  was  for  Him. 
How  could  men  have  comprehended  the  infinite  love  of  which  they  were 
the  objects  on  heaven's  part,  if  Jesus  had  not  explained  to  them  the  infinite 
value  of  the  gift  which  God  made  to  them  in  His  person.  Does  not  love 
measure  itself  by  the  cost  of  the  gift,  by  the  greatness  of  the  sacrifice? 
On  the  other  hand,  this  revelation  of  the  heavenly  things  could  not  be 
the  habitual  object  of  the  Lord's  teachings.  Scarcely  would  one  or  two 
disciples  have  followed  Him,  if  He  had  stayed  upon  these  heavenly 
heights ;  the  yet  gross  mass  of  the  people  who  asked  only  for  a  Messiah 
after  their  own  carnal  heart — a  king  capable  of  every  day  giving  them 
bread  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word  (vi.  15,  34),  would  have  remained 
strangers  to  His  influence,  and  would  soon  have  left  Him  alone  with  His 
two  or  three  initiated  ones. 

It  is  undoubtedly  for  the  same  reason,  that  these  teachings  respecting 
the  heavenly  things  remained,  in  general,  outside  of  the  limits  of  the  first 
apostolical  preaching  and  the  oral  telling  of  the  Gospel  story. 

Nevertheless,  even  if  this  was  the  course  of  things,  it  is  improbable  that 
every  trace  of  this  mode  of  teaching,  more  lofty  in  matter  and  tone, 
would  have  completely  disappeared  from  the  Synoptic  narrative.  And, 
indeed,  two  of  our  evangelists — those  who,  along  with  John,  have  labored 
most  to  transmit  to  us  the  teachings  of  Jesus — Matthew  and  Luke,  have 
preserved  for  us  the  account  of  a  moment  of  extraordinary  emotion  in 
the  Lord's  life  which  presents  us  the  example  naturally  looked  for.     It  is 


# 


122  BOOK   II.      THE   GOSPEL. 

in  Luke  especially,  that  we  must  seek  the  faithful  representation  of  it 
(chap.  x.).  Jesus  has  sent  into  the  fields  and  villages  of  Galilee  seventy  of 
His  disciples,  weak  spiritual  children,  to  whom  He  has  entrusted  the  task 
of  making  the  population  understand  the  importance  of  the  work  which 
is  being  accomplished  at  this  time,  and  the  nearness  of  the  kingdom. 
They  return  to  Him  filled  with  joy,  and  inform  Him  of  the  complete 
success  of  their  mission.  At  this  moment,  the  evangelist  tells  us,  "  Jesus 
rejoiced  in  His  spirit,  and  said  :  I  thank  thee,  Father,  Lord  of  heaven  and 
earth,  that  thou  hast  hid  these  things  from  the  wise  and  prudent,  and  hast 
revealed  them  unto  babes!  Yea,  Father,  for  so  it  seemed  good  in  thy 
sight.  All  things  have  been  delivered  unto  me  by  my  Father,  and  no  one 
knoweth  who  the  Son  is  but  the  Father,  nor  who  the  Father  is  but  the 
Son,  and  he  to  whom  the  Son  willeth  to  reveal  him."  In  reading  these 
words,  we  ask  ourselves  whether  it  is  indeed  from  St.  Luke  or  St.  Matthew 
that  we  are  reading,  and  not  from  St.  John.  What  does  this  fact  prove? 
That,  according  to  the  Synoptics  themselves,  in  certain  exceptional 
moments  of  elevation,  the  language  of  Jesus  really  assumed  that  sweet 
tone,  that  mystic  tinge,  as  it  has  been  called — is  it  not  more  correct  to  say, 
heavenly  ? — of  which  we  find  in  them  but  one  single  example,  and  of 
which  six  or  seven  discom-ses  in  John  bear,  in  greater  or  less  degree,  the 
impress.  This  passage  of  Luke  and  Matthew  has  been  called  an  erratic 
block  of  Johannean  rock  strayed  into  the  Synoptic  ground.  The  figure 
is  quite  just;  what  does  it  prove?  The  smallest  fragment  of  granite 
deposited  on  the  calcareous  slopes  of  Jura,  is  for  the  geologist  the  unde- 
niable proof  that  somewhere  in  the  lofty  Alpine  summits  the  entire  rock 
is  in  its  place.  'Otherwise  this  block  would  be  a  monstrosity  for  science. 
The  same  is  true  of  this  fragment  of  Johannean  discourse  in  the  Synoptic 
Gospels.  It  is  fully  sufficient  to  prove  the  existence,  at  certain  moments, 
of  this  so-called  Johannean  language  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  The  real 
difference  between  John  and  the  Synoptics,  on  this  most  decisive  point, 
amounts  to  this :  while  these  last  have  handed  down  to  us  but  a  single 
example  of  this  form  of  language,  John  has  preserved  for  us  several 
examples  selected  with  a  particular  purpose. 

As,  on  the  one  hand,  it  is  certain  from  the  very  nature  of  things,  that 
the  peculiar  style  of  the  translator  has  colored  that  of  the  Preacher  whose 
discourses  he  reproduces,  on  the  other  hand,  the  passage  of  the  Synoptics, 
which  we  have  just  quoted,  places  beyond  doubt  the  fact  that  the  language 
of  the  Lord  Himself  had  stamped  its  impression  deeply  on  the  soul  of  the 
evangelist,  and  exercised  a  decisive  and  permanent  influence  on  his  style. 
There  was  here,  therefore,  if  I  may  venture  to  express  myself  thus,  a 
reflex  action,  the  secret  of  which,  undoubtedly,  no  one  will  ever  com- 
pletely disclose. 

Moreover,  the  discourses  of  Jesus  in  the  fourth  Gospel  bear  in  them- 
selves, for  every  one  who  has  eyes  to  see  them,  the  seal  of  their  true 
origin,  and,  notwithstanding  all  the  assertions  of  learned  men,  the  Church 
will  always  know  what  it  should  think  of  them.  An  intimate,  filial, 
unchanging  communion  with  the  God  of  heaven  and  earth,  like  that 


CHARACTERISTICS — THE   DISCOURSES.  123 

which  here  reveals  itself  by  the  mouth  of  Jesus,  must  be  lived  in  order  to  be 
thus  expressed — what  shall  I  say,  in  order  to  our  having  even  a  glimpse 
of  it.  The  i?iventor  of  such  discourses  would  be  more  than  a  genius  of  the 
first  rank ;  he  would  need  to  be  himself  a  Son  of  God,  a  Jesus  equal  to 
the  true  one.  Criticism  gains  only  one  more  embarrassment  by  such  a 
supposition. 

C.  The  Johannean  notion  of  the  Person  of  Jesus. 

Is  it  possible  for  us  to  go  back  even  to  the  single  source  from  which  flow 
forth,  like  two  diverging  streams,  the  two  forms  of  Jesus'  teaching  which 
we  have  just  established.  First  of  all,  let  us  set  aside  the  opinion,  at  pres- 
ent somewhat  widespread,  which  holds  that  a  dualism  can  be  discerned 
even  in  the  teaching  of  our  Gospel.  Two  scholars,  Baur  and  Reuss,  have 
claimed  that  the  author  of  this  work  did  not  hold  a  real  incarnation  of 
the  Logos  ;  that,  according  to  him,  the  divine  being  continued  in  Jesus  in 
the  possession  and  exercise  of  His  heavenly  attributes,  in  such  a  way  that 
His  humanity  was  only  a  passing  and  superficial  covering,  which  did  not 
modify,  in  any  respect,  the  state  which  He  had  possessed  before  coming  to 
the  earth.  Starting  from  this  point  of  view,  Eeuss  finds  in  our  Gospel  a 
series  of  contradictions  between  certain  words  of  Jesus,  which  he  believes 
to  be  authentic,  and  that  conception  which  is  exhibited  in  the  amplifica- 
tions due  to  the  pen  of  the  evangelist.  While  in  the  former,  Jesus  dis- 
tinctly affirms  His  inferiority  to  the  Father,  the  author  of  our  Gospel, 
filled  with  his  own  notion  of  the  Logos,  presents  Him  as  equal  with  God. 
It  is  difficult  to  conceive  a  more  complete  travesty  of  the  Johannean  nar- 
rative. We  have  already  shown  that  no  Gospel  sets  forth  with  more  pro- 
nounced features  than  this  one  the  real  humanity  of  Jesus,  body,  soul  and 
spirit.  The  body  is  exhausted  (iv.  G) ;  the  soul  is  overwhelmed  in  trouble 
(xii.  27);  the  spirit  itself  is  agitated  (xiii.  21)  and  groans  (xi.  83).  What 
place  remains  in  such  a  being  for  the  presence  of  an  impassible  Logos? 
More  than  this  :  according  to  the  prologue,  which  is  certainly  the  work  of 
the  evangelist,  the  Logos  Himself,  in  His  state  of  divine  pre-existence, 
tends  towards  God  as  to  His  centre  (i.  1) ;  He  dwells  in  God,  as  a  first-born 
Son  in  the  bosom  of  His  Father  (i.  18).  Where  in  this  representation  is 
the  place  for  a  being  equal  with  God?  No;  the  subordination  of  the  Son 
to  the  Father  is  affirmed  by  the  evangelist  as  distinctly  as  it  could  have 
been  by  Jesus  when  speaking  of  Himself;  and  as  for  His  real  humanity, 
it  is  emphasized  by  this  same  evangelist  more  strongly  than  by  any  one 
of  the  Synoptics. 

There  is,  then,  no  trace  of  a  twofold  contradictory  theology  in  our  Gos- 
pel.1 This  supposition  is  already,  in  its  very  nature,  in  the  highest  degree 
improbable.  It  implies  a  fact  which  it  is  very  difficult  to  admit.  This 
fact  is,  that  so  profound  a  thinker  as  the  one  who  composed  this  work,  the 
most  powerful  mind  of  his  epoch,  could,  without  being  in  the  least  degree 

1  As  Beyschlag  now  claims ;  cotnp.  also  tho  thesis  of  Jean  Reville,  La  doctrine  du  Logos,  1881, 


124  BOOK   II.      THE  GOSPEL. 

aware  of  it,  simultaneously  teach  two  opposite  conceptions  respecting  the 
subject  which  occupied  the  first  place  in  his  thoughts  and  in  his  heart. 

The  idea  which  the  evangelist  formed  of  the  person  of  Christ,  and 
which  is  in  perfect  accord  with  even  the  smallest  historical  or  didactic 
details  of  the  entire  narrative,  is  clearly  formulated  by  the  author  in  the 
prologue :  "  The  Word  was  made  flesh," — which  evidently  signifies  that 
the  being  whom  he  calls  the  Word  divested  Himself  of  His  divine  state 
and  of  all  the  attributes  which  constituted  it,  in  order  to  exchange  it  for 
a  completely  human  state,  with  all  the  characteristics  of  weakness,  ignor- 
?  ance,  sensibility  to  pleasure  and  pain,  which  constitute  our  peculiar  mode 
f  of  life  here  below.1  Tins  mode  of  conceiving  of  the  person  of  Christ 
during  His  sojourn  on  the'  earth  is  not  peculiar  to  John ;  it  is  also  that  of 
Paul,  who  tells  us  in  Philippians  :  "  He  who  was  in  the  form  of  God  .  .  . 
emptied  himself,  taking  upon  him  the  form  of  a  servant,  and  being  made 
in  the  likeness  of  men"  (ii.  6,  7);  and  also  in  Second  Corinthians:  "Ye 
know  the  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who,  though  he  was  rich,  for 
your  sakes  became  poor,  that  ye,  through  his  poverty,  might  become 
rich  "  (2  Cor.  viii.  9).  The  same  teaching  is  found  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  and  the  Apocalypse,  though  it  would  require  too  much  space  to 
show  this  here.2  Here  is  the  key  to  all  the  Christological  ideas  of  the 
New  Testament.  It  is,  in  particular,  the  explanation  of  that  double  form 
of  teaching  Avhich  we  find  in  the  mouth  of  Christ,  in  John  and  in  the 
Synoptics. 

Up  to  His  baptism,  Jesus  had  lived  in  a  filial  communion  with  God; 
that  saying  of  the  child  of  twelve  years  is  the  proof  of  this  :  "  Must  I  not 
be  in  that  which  belongs  to  my  Father?  "  (Luke  ii.  49.)  But  He  had  not 
as  yet  the  distinct  consciousness  of  His  eternal,  essential  relation  to  the 
Father ;  His  communion  with  Him  was  of  a  moral  nature ;  it  sprang 
from  His  pure  conscience  and  His  ardent  love  for  Him.  In  this  state,  He 
must,  indeed,  have  had  a  presentiment  that  He  was  the  physician  of  sinful 
humanity,  as  the  Messiah.  But  an  immediate  divine  testimony  was 
necessary,  in  order  that  He  should  be  able  to  undertake  the  redemptive 
work.  This  testimony  was  given  to  Him  at  His  baptism ;  at  that  moment 
the  heavens  were  opened  to  Him ;  the  heavenly  things,  which  He  was  to 
reveal  to  others,  were  unveiled  to  Him.  At  the  same  time  the  mystery 
of  His  "own  person  became  clear  to  Him;  He  heard  the  voice  of  the 
Father  which  said  to  Him  :  "  Thou  art  my  beloved  Son."  From  that  day 
He  knew  Himself  perfectly ;  and  knowing  Himself  as  the  only-begotten 
Son,  the  object  of  all  the  Father's  love,  He  knew  also  how  greatly  the 
Father  loved  the  world  to  which  He  was  giving  Him  :  He  knew  fully,  as 
man,  the  Father  himself,  the  Father  in  all  the  riches  of  the  meaning  of 
this  word.  Thus  it  was  that,  from  this  day  onward,  He  carried  heaven  in 
His  heart,  while  living  on  the  earth.    He  had,  then,  if  we  may  so  speak, 


1  The  same  expression  is  used  (ii.  9),  to  ex-       attributes, 
press  the  change  of  the  water  into  wine:  one  scomp,  Heb.  i.  3;  ii.  17, 18;  v.  6-8;  Apoe.  i. 

same  substance,  but  clothed  with  different       1, 18 ;  iii.  12,  21 ;  v.  6. 


CHARACTERISTICS — THE   DISCOURSES.  125 

two  sources  of  information :  one,  the  experience  of  the  earthly  things 
which  He  had  learned  to  know  during  the  thirty  years  of  life  which  He  had 
just  passed  here  on  earth  as  a  mere  man  ;  the  other,  the  permanent  intui- 
tion of  the  heavenly  things  winch  had  just  unveiled  themselves  to  Him  at 
the  hour  of  the  baptism.  How  can  we  be  surprised,  therefore,  that  Jesus 
spoke  alternately  of  the  one  and  the  other,  according  to  the  wants  of  His 
hearers,  rinding  in  the  first  the  common  ground  which  was  needed  by 
Him  to  excite  their  interest  and  gain  their  attention,  deriving  from  the 
second  the  matter  of  the  new  revelation,  by  means  of  which  He  was  to 
transform  the  world?  On  the  one  side,  there  were  the  moral  obligations 
of  man,  his  relations  to  things  here  below,  treated  from  a  divine  point  of 
view,  as  we  see  particularly  in  the  Synoptics;  on  the  other,  the  higher 
mystery  of  the  relation  of  love  between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  and  of 
the  love  of  both  towards  a  world  sunk  in  sin  and  death,  a  world  to  which  j 
the  Father  gives  the  Son  and  the  Son  gives  Himself. 

It  seems  to  me  that,  by  placing  ourselves  at  this  point  of  view,  we  may 
see  springing  up,  as  if  by  a  sort  of  moral  necessity,  the  two  modes  of 
teaching  which  till  science,  but  not  the  Church,  with  astonishment.  Do 
we  not  know  young  persons  or  mature  men  who,  after  having  led  a  per- 
fectly moral  life,  see  all  at  once  opening  before  them,  through  the 
mysterious  act  of  the  new  birth,  the  sanctuary  of  communion  with  Christ, 
the  life  of  adoption,  the  inward  enjoyment  of  the  fatherly  love  of  God  ? 
Their  language  assumes  then,  at  certain  moments,  a  new  character  which 
astonishes  those  who  hear  them  speak  thus,  and  ask  themselves  whether 
it  is,  indeed,  the  same  man.  There  is  in  their  tone  something  elevated, 
something  sweet,  which  was  previously  strange  to  them.  The  words  are, 
as  it  were,  words  coming  from  a  higher  region.  We  are  tempted  to  cry 
out  with  the  poet : 

Ah !  qui  n'oublierait  tout  a  cette  voix  celeste  ! , 
Ta  parole  est  un  chant  .  .  . 

but  without  adding,  with  him, 

ou  rien  d'huraain  ne  reste.1 

For  this  divine  language  is,  nevertheless,  the  most  human  language  which 
can  be  spoken.  Then,  when  this  moment  of  exaltation  has  passed,  and 
the  ordinary  life  resumes  its  own  course,  the  ordinary  language  returns 
with  it,  although  ever  grave,  ever  holy,  ever  dominated  by  the  immediate 
relation  with  God  which  henceforth  forms  the  background  of  the  entire 
life.  Such  experiences  are  not  rare;  they  serve  to  explain  the  mystery 
of  the  twofold  teaching  and  the  twofold  language  of  the  Word  made  flesh, 
from  the  moment  when  He  had  been  revealed  to  Himself  by  the  testimony 
of  the  Father.'2 

1  Ah,  who  would  not  all  forget  in  that  celes-  s  Regarded  from  this  point  of  view,  the  faci 

tial  voice.  of  the  incarnation,  while  still  presenting  to  hu- 

Thy  speech  is  a  song  ....  whero  nothing  man  reason  profound  mysteries,  does  notscem 

of  man  remains.  to  us  to  contain  uusolvable  contradictions. 


126  BOOK   II.      THE   GOSPEL. 

But,  even  if  we  cannot  reach  in  thought  the  sublime  point  where,  in 
the  person  of  Christ,  the  two  converging  lines  of  the  humanity  which 
rises  to  the  highest  point,  and  the  divinity  which  humbles  itself  mc:t 
profoundly,  meet  together,  do  we  not  know  that,  in  mathematics,  no  one 
refuses  to  acknowledge  the  reality  of  the  point  where  the  two  lines  called 
asymptotes  meet  when  infinitely  produced,  and  that  the  operations  are 
carried  on  with  reference  to  this  point  as  with  reference  to  a  positive 
quantity  ?  Weiss  rightly  says  : J  "It  is  necessary,  indeed,  to  consider  that 
the  appearance  of  Jesus  in  itself,  as  the  realization  of  a  divinely  human 
life,  was  much  too  rich,  too  great,  too  manifold,  not  to  be  presented  in  a 
different  way  according  to  the  varied  individualities  which  received  its 
rays,  and  according  to  the  more  or  less  ideal  points  of  view  at  which  these 
rays  were  reflected ;  while,  however,  this  difference  could  not  be  prejudicial 
to  the  unity  of  the  fundamental  impression,  and  of  the  essential  character 
in  which  this  personality  made  itself  known." 

Criticism  has  often  compared  the  difference  with  which  we  are  con- 
cerned to  that  which  is  presented  by  the  two  representations  of  the  person 
of  Socrates,  traced  by  Plato  and  Xenophon.  At  the  outset,  the  historians 
of  philosophy  turned  to  the  side  of  Xenophon,  thinking  that  they  could 
recognize  the  true  historical  type  in  the  simple,  practical,  varied,  popular 
Socrates  of  the  Memorabilia.  At  that  time,  the  Socrates  of  Plato  was  re- 
garded as  only  a  mouth-piece  chosen  by  that  author  in  order  to  set  forth 
his  own  theory  of  ideas.  Xenophon  was  the  historian,  Plato  the  philoso- 
pher. But  criticism  has  changed  its  mind ;  Schleiermacher,  above  all,  has 
taught  us  that,  if  the  teaching  of  Socrates  had  not  contained  speculative 
elements,  such  as  Plato  attributes  to  him,  and  elements  as  to  which  the 
other  writer  is  completely  silent,  no  account  could  be  given  either  of  the 
relation  which  so  closely  united  the  school  of  Plato  to  the  person  of  Soc- 
rates, or  of  the  extraordinary  attractive  power  which  the  latter  exercised 
over  the  most  eminent  and  most  speculative  minds  of  his  time,  or  of  the 
profound  revolution  effected  by  him  in  the  progress  of  Greek  thought.2 
With  Xenophon  alone,  there  remains  a  vacancy — a  vacancy  which  we  can- 
not fill  except  with  the  aid  of  Plato.  This  fact  arises,  on  the  one  hand, 
from  the  special  aim  of  Xenophon's  book,  which  was  to  make  a  moral 
defense  of  his  master ;  on  the  other,  from  the  circumstance  that  Xenophon, 
a  practical  man,  Jacked  the  philosophical  capacity  which  was  necessary 
for  the  apprehension  of  the  higher  elements  of  the  Socratic  teaching. 
Zeller  also  acknowledges  that  Xenophon  did  not  comprehend  the  scientific 
value  of  Socrates ;  "  that  Socrates  cannot  have  been  that  exclusive  and 
unscientific  moralist  for  which  he  was  so  long  taken,"  while  the  starting- 
point  for  criticism  was  made  from  the  work  of  Xenophon  only.  "  There 
is,"  he  says,  "in  the  exposition  of  each  of  the  two  writers,  a  surplus 
(Ueberschuss)  which  can  without  difficulty  be  introduced  into  the  com- 
mon portrait."     No  doubt,  Plato  has  put  into  the  mouth  of  Socrates  his 

1  Introduction  to  his  Commentary  on  the  a  Scholars  like  Brandis  and  Hitter  hold  this 

Gospel  of  John,  p.  33.  opinion. 


CHARACTERISTICS — THE  DISCOURSES.  127 

own  theory  of  ideas.  But  it  was  only  the  development  of  the  teaching  of 
Socrates  himself;  and  it  must  be  admitted  that  where  he  puts  Socrates  on 
the  stage  as  an  historical  personage  (in  the  Apology  and  the  Symposium, 
for  example),  he  does  not  take  this  course.1 

This  parallel  presents,  mutatis  mutandis,  several  remarkable  correspond- 
ences in  detail.  But  it  offers,  above  all,  this  fundamental  analogy  that, 
in  the  case  of  Socrates  as  in  that  of  Jesus,  we  find  ourselves  in  the  pres- 
ence of  two  portraits  of  an  historical  personage,  the  perfect  synthesis  of 
which  it  is  impossible  to  make.  Now,  if  philosophy  is  still  seeking  after 
the  fusion  of  the  two  portraits  of  the  wisest  of  the  Greeks,  are  we  to  be  sur- 
prised that  theology  has  not  yet  succeeded  in  effecting  that  of  the  two 
pictures  of  Christ.  Is  the  richness  of  the  former,  a  man  whose  influence 
on  the  moral  history  of  his  people  was  so  serious,  but  so  transient,  to  be 
compared  to  the  richness  of  Him  whose  appearance  has  renewed  and  is 
constantly  renewing  the  world  ?  And  if  there  was  in  the  former  that 
which  furnishes  matter  for  two  portraits,  both  of  them  true  and  yet  not 
reducible  to  a  single  one,  why  should  we  be  surprised  to  see  the  same 
phenomenon  reappearing  with  regard  to  Him  who  could  have  ex- 
claimed in  Greece  :  "  A  greater  than  Socrates  is  here,"  as  He  did  exclaim 
in  Judea  :  "A  greater  than  Solomon  is  here." 

"No  one  knoweth  the  Son  but  the  Father,"  says  Jesus  in  the  Synoptics. 
The  point  of  convergence  of  the  two  representations — the  Johannean  and 
the  Synoptic,  is  accordingly  the  consciousness  which  the  Son  had  of  Him- 
self. We  shall,  undoubtedly,  not  be  successful  in  reconstructing  it  per- 
fectly here  on  earth. 

We  behold  one  sun  in  the  arch  of  heaven ;  and  yet  what  a  difference 
between  its  burning  reflection  on  the  slopes  of  the  Alpine  glaciers  and  its. 
calm  and  majestic  image  in  the  waves  of  the  ocean  !  The  source  of  light 
is  one,  but  the  two  mirrors  are  different. 

We  conclude : 

1.  The  primal  idea  of  the  Johannean  work  did  not  by  any  means  nec- 
essarily impair  its  historical  character. 

2.  The  truthfulness  of  the  narrative  appears  manifestly  from  the  com- 
parison of  the  story  with  that  of  the  Synoptics,  to  which  it  is  invariably 
Buperior  in  the  cases  where  they  differ. 

3.  The  truthfulness  of  the  account  of  the  discourses,  which  is  supported 
by  such  strong  positive  reasons,  does  not  in  fact  encounter  any  insur- 
mountable difficulty. 

The  fourth  Gospel  is,  therefore,  a  truly  historical  work. 

g  2.  THE  RELATION  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL   TO   THE   RELIGION  OF  THE 
OLD  TESTAMENT. 

Modern  criticism  believes  itself  able  to  prove  a  tendency  in  the  fourth 
Gospel  decidedly  hostile  to  Judaism.  Baur  thinks  that  the  author  of  this 
book  desired  to  introduce  anti-Jewish  Gnosticism  into  the  Church ;  that  he 

'  1  Philos.  der  Griechcn,  liter  Th.,  3d  ed.,  pp.  85  ff. ;  151, 165. 


128  BOOK   II.      THE  GOSPEL. 

was  a  Docetist  and  dualist,  professing  the  non-reality  of  the  body  of 
Jesus  and  the  eternal  contrast  between  darkness  and  light.  Without  going 
as  far  as  this,  Reuss  says,  '  that  he  speaks  of  the  Jews  as  of  a  class  of  for- 
eigners, with  whom  he  had  no  connection;"  that"  all  that  preceded  Jesus 
belongs,  according  to  him,  to  a  past  without  any  value,  and  can  only  serve 
to  lead  men  astray  and  cause  them  to  miss  the  gate  of  salvation  "  (x.  8).1 
Eenan  also  attributes  to  the  evangelist  a  "  lively  antipathy  "  to  Judaism. 
Hilgenfeld,  finally,  is  the  one  who  has  gone,  and  still  goes,  the  farthest  in 
the  affirmation  of  this  thesis.  He  originally  ascribed  our  Gospel  to  some 
Gnostic  writer  of  the  second  century ;  he  has  since  softened  this  assertion ; 
he  thinks  that  the  author,  while  belonging  to  the  Church,  "nevertheless 
goes  a  considerable  distance  along  with  Gnosticism."  According  to  the 
fourth  evangelist,  "  Judaism  belonged,  as  much  as  paganism,  to  the  dark- 
ness which  preceded  the  Gospel ;"  the  religion  of  the  Old  Testament  pos- 
sessed "  only  an  imperfect  and  dim  prefiguration  of  Christianity."  The 
knowledge  of  the  true  God  was  wanting  to  it  as  much  as  to  Samaritan 
paganism.2 

What  is  alleged  in  justification  of  such  judgments?  In  the  first  place, 
some  particular  terms,  familiar  to  the  evangelist,  such  as  this  :  the  Jews,  an 
expression  which  he  employs  in  a  sense  always  hostile  to  that  people ;  or 
that  other  expression :  your  law,  a  term  in  which  a  feeling  of  disdain  for 
the  Mosaic  institution  ancTthe  Old  Testament  betrays  itself.  But  the  un- 
favorable sense  attached  in  our  Gospel  to  the  name,  the  Jews,  to  designate 
the  enemies  of  the  light,  proceeds  not  from  a  subjective  feeling  of  the 
evangelist,  but  from  the  fact  itself — that  is  to  say,  from  the  position  taken 
towards  Jesus  from  the  beginning  (John  ii.)  by  the  mass  of  the  nation  and 
by  their  rulers.  The  author  uses  this  term  also,  when  there  is  occasion  for 
it  (which  is  rare),  in  an  entirely  neutral  sense,  as  in  ii.  6  ("the  purification 
of  the  Jews")  and  xix.  40  ("the  custom  of  the  Jews  to  embalm  bodies"); 
or  even  in  a  favorable  sense,  as  in  the  passages  iv.  22  ("salvation  is  from 
the  Jews")  and  xi.  45  ("many  of  the  Jews  who  came  to  Mary  believed  on 
him  ").  We  may  also  cite  here  the  use  of  the  name  Israelite,  applied  as  a 
title  of  honor  to  Nathanael  (i.  48).  In  the  Apocalypse,  which  is  affirmed 
to  be  an  absolutely  Judaizing  work,  the  Jews  who  obstinately  resist  the 
Gospel  ,are  designated  in  a  much  more  severe  way  :  "Those  who  say  they 
are  Jews  and  who.are  not,  but  are  the  synagogue  of  Satan"  (ii.  9;  comp.  iii. 
9).3  The  great  crisis  which  had  cast  Israel  out  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and 
which  had  made  it  henceforth  a  body  foreign  and  even  hostile  to  the 
Church,  had  begun  already  during  the  ministry  of  Jesus.  This  is  what  the 
author  sets  forth  by  this  term :  the  Jeivs,  which  is  contrasted  in  his  narrative 
With  the  term  :  the  disciples.  In  making  Jesus  say  your  law,  the  evangelist 
cannot  have  had  the  intention  of  disparaging  the  Mosaic  institution,  any 

1  Thiol.  joh.,Tpp.  82  and  19.  8  Ewald  (Comment,  in  Apoe.  Joh.  ad.  h.  ].): 

*Das  Evangelium  und  die  Briefe  Johannis,  "John,  in  a  piquant  way,  calls  the  Jews  aa 

1849 ;  comp.  with  his  more  recent  article  in  assembly,  not  of  God,  but  of  Satan,  as  Jesut 

the  Zeitschrift  fur  wissensctiajitiche  Theologie  Himself  does  (John  viii.  37-14)." 
1865,  and  Einleitung,  pp.  722  ff. 


CHARACTERISTICS — THE   DISCOURSES.  129 

more  than  In  making  Jesus  say:  "Abraham  your  father"  (viii.  56),  he 
dreamed  of  depreciating  that  patriarch.  He  exalts  him,  on  the  contrary, 
in  that  very  verse,  by  setting  forth  the  joyous  sympathy  winch  he  experi- 
ences in  a  higher  state  of  existence  for  Himself  and  His  work  :  "  Abraham 
rejoiced  in  expectation  of  seeing  my  day,  and  he  saw  it  and  was  glad."  In 
the  same  way,  x.  34,  after  having  used  the  expression :  your  law,  He  im- 
mediately adds,  in  connection  with  the  passage  of  the  O.  T.  which  he  has 
just  quoted,  these  words :  "And  since  the  Scripture  cannot  be  broken," 
making  the  law  thus  a  divine  and  infallible  revelation.  Elsewhere  He  de- 
clares that  "  it  is  the  Scriptures  which  testify  of  him  "  (v.  39) ;  that  the  sin 
of  the  hearers  consists  in  "not  having  the  word  of  God  abiding  in  them" 
(ver.  3S),  and  even  that  the  real  cause  of  their  unbelief  towards  Him  is 
nothing  else  than  their  unbelief  with  respect  to  the  writings  of  Moses  (vv. 
46,  47).  The  evangelist  who  makes  Jesus  speak  thus  evidently  does  not 
seek  to  disparage  the  law;  the  contradiction  would  be  too  flagrant.  Jesus, 
therefore,  in  using  the  expression  your  law,  means:  "that  law  which  you 
yourselves  recognize  as  the  sovereign  authority,"  or:  "that  law  which  you 
invoke  against  me,  and  in  the  name  of  which  you  seek  to  condemn  me." 
It  must  be  remarked  that  He  could  not  say  "our  law,"  because  His  per- 
sonal relation  to  that  institution  was  too  widely  different  from  that  of  the 
ordinary  Jews  to  be  included  under  the  same  pronoun  ;  just  as  He  could 
not  say,  when  speaking  of  God :  "  our  Father,"  but  only  "  my  Father,"  and 
"your  Father"  (xx.  17). 

It  has  been  remarked  that  Jesus  never  speaks  in  this  Gospel  of  the  law 
as  the  principle  on  which  the  life  of  the  new  community  is  to  rest.  This 
is  true;  but  this  is  because  He  supposes  the  law  to  have  become  the  inter- 
nal principle  of  the  life  of  believers  through  the  fact  of  their  communion 
with  Him. 

Critics  also  allege  the  freedom  with  which  Jesus,  in  His  cures,  was  ready 
to  violate  the  Jewish  Sabbath.  Hilgenfeld  even  discovers  the  intention  of 
abolishing  that  institution  in  the  words  of  v.  17:  "My  Father  worketh 
hitherto,  and  I  also  work."  As  to  the  Sabbath  cures,  they  are  found  in  the 
Synoptics  as  well  as  in  John ;  and  there,  as  here,  it  is  these  acts  which  be- 
gin to  excite  the  deadly  hatred  of  the  Jews  against  Him  (Luke  vi.  11).  But 
we  formally  deny  the  position  that  by  these  healings  Jesus  really  violated 
the  terms  of  the  Mosaic  command.  He  transgressed  nothing  else  than 
that  hedge  of  arbitrary  statutes  by  which  the  Pharisees  had  thought  fit  to 
surround  the  fourth  commandment.  Jesus  remained,  from  the  beginning 
to  the  end,  in  our  Gospel  as  in  the  others,  the  minister  of  the  circumcisioti 
(Rom.  xv.  8), — that  is  to  say,  the  scrupulous  observer  of  the  law.  As  to  the 
words  of  v.  17,  they  are  by  no  means  contrary  to  the  idea  of  the  Sabbath 
rest;  they  only  mean:  "As  the  Father  labors  in  the  work  of  the  salvation 
of  humanity — and  this  work  evidently  suffers  no  interruption  at  any  mo- 
ment whatsoever,  still  less  on  the  Sabbath  day  than  on  any  other— the  Son 
cannot  fold  His  arms  and  leave  the  Father  to  labor  alone."  This  declara- 
tion does  not  contradict  the  Sabbatic  rest  when  properly  understood. 

Hilgenfeld  alleges  also  the  two  following  passages :  iv.  21,  and  viii.  44. 


130  BOOK   II.      THE   GOSPEL. 

In  the  first,  Jesus  says  to  the  Samaritan  woman :  "  The  hour  cometh 
when  ye  shall  no  longer  worship  the  Father  either  in  this  mountain  or  at 
Jerusalem,"  which  proves,  according  to  him,  that  Jesus  wished  to  set 
Himself  in  opposition  to  the  Jews  no  less  than  to  the  Samaritans,  and 
that  consequently,  when  he  says  in  the  following  verse  :  "  Ye  worship  that 
which  ye  know  not,"  this  judgment  applies  to  the  former  as  well  as  to  the 
latter.  The  Jewish  religion  would  therefore  be,  according  to  these  words 
of  Jesus,  as  erroneous  as  all'the  rest. — But  there  is  enough  in  the  follow- 
ing words :  "  because  salvation  comes  from  the  Jews,"  to  refute  this 
explanation ;  for,  instead  of  because,  the  author  would  have  been  obliged 
in  that  case  to  have  said  although:  "Although  the  Jews  are  as  ignorant  as 
you  and  all  the  others,  it  has  pleased  God  to  make  salvation  come  forth 
from  the  midst  of  them."  The  because  (uti)  has  no  meaning  unless  Jesus 
in  the  preceding  words  had  accorded  to  the  Jews  a  knowledge  of  God 
superior  to  that  of  the  Samaritans."  This  fact  proves  that  the  words  :  "  We 
worship  that  which  we  know  "  apply  not  only  to  Him,  Jesus,  personally, 
but  to  Him  conjointly  with  all  Israel.1  The  true  meaning  of  the  words  of 
ver.  21  is  explained  by  ver.  23  (which  resumes  ver.  21) :  "  Your  worship, 
as  for  you  Samaritans,  will  not  be  confined  to  this  mountain  Gerizim,  nor 
will  it,  any  more,  be  transported  and  localized  anew  at  Jerusalem."  Indeed, 
this  second  alternative  must  have  appeared  to  the  woman  the  only  one 
possible,  when  once  the  first  was  set  aside. 

In  the  passage  viii.  44,  Jesus  says  to  the  Jews,  according  to  the  ordinary 
construction:  "  You  are  of  a  father,  the  devil."  Hilgenfeld  translates,  as  is 
no  doubt  grammatically  possible :  "  You  are  of  the  father  of  the  devil." 
This  father  of  the  devil  is,  according  to  him,  the  God  of  the  Jews,  the 
Creator  of  the  material  world,  who  in  some  of  the  Gnostic  systems  (Ophi- 
tes, Valentinians)  was  actually  presented  as  the  father  of  the  demon. 
This  is  not  all ;  Jesus  says  at  the  end  of  the  same  verse :  "  When  he 
speaketh  a  lie,  he  speaketh  of  his  own,  because  he  is  a  liar,  and  his  father," 
which  is  ordinarily  understood  in  this  sense  :  because  he  is  a  liar  and  the 
father  of  the  liar  (or  of  the  lie).  But  Hilgenfeld  explains :  because  he 
(the  devil)  is  a  liar,  as  also,  his  father  (is  a  liar).  And  he  finds  here  a  sec- 
ond time  the  father  of  the  devil,  who  is  called  "  a  liar  as  well  as  his  son," 
because,  throughout  the  entire  Old  Testament,  the  God  of  the  Jews  made 
Himself  pass  for  the  supreme  God,  while  He  was  only  an  inferior  divin- 
ity.— The  author  of  this  explanation  is  astonished  that  it  could  have  been 
regarded  as  monstrous,  and  claims  "  that  no  one  has  yet  advanced  the 
first  reasonable  word  against  it."  He  must,  nevertheless,  acknowledge 
the  following  facts  :  1.  The  father  of  the  devil  is  a  personage  totally  for- 
eign to  the  Biblical  sphere,  and  the  author  of  our  Gospel  would  have 
greatly  compromised  the  success  of  his  fraud  by  introducing  him  on  the 
stage.  2.  The  notion  of  two  opposite  and  personal  Gods,  of  whom  the 
second  is  another  being  than  the  devil,  is  so  opposed  to  the  Israelitish  and 

'  lit  waa 'only  through  placing  Himself  in  tans),  that  He  could  say  toe  in  speaking  of 
opposition  to  a  foreign  people  (the  Samari-       Himself  and  the  other  Jews,  as  He  does  here. 


CHARACTERISTICS — THE   DISCOURSES.  131 

Christian  monotheism  professed  by  the  author  (v.  44),  that  it  is  impossi- 
ble to  admit  such  a  teaching  here.  3.  What  Jesus,  according  to  the  entire 
context,  wishes  to  prove  to  the  Jews,  is  that  they  are  the  children  of  the 
devil,  but  not  his  brothers,  as  would  follow  from  Hilgenfeld's  translation  : 
"  You  are  born  of  the  father  of  the  devil."  In  this  whole  passage  the 
matter  in  hand  is  that  of  contrasting  filiation  with  filiation,  father  with 
father.  "  Ye  do  that  which  ye  have  seen  with  your  father,"  Jesus  said, 
ver.  38.  The  Jews  replied  to  Him  :  "  We  have  only  one  father,  God " 
(ver.  41).  And  Jesus' answer  is  the  echo  of  theirs:  "Ye  are  born  of  a 
father,  [who  is]  the  devil."  The  first  epistle  offers  a  decisive  parallel 
(iii.  10).  "  In  this  the  children  of  God  are  manifest,  and  the  children  of  the 
devil."  4.  Finally,  let  us  remark,  that  if  the  first  words  of  the  verse  are 
applied  to  the  father  of  the  devil,  it  is  necessary  to  apply  to  this  same  per- 
sonage the  whole  series  of  the  following  propositions,  even  inclusive  of  the 
last.  These  words :  "  because  he  is  a  liar  as  well  as  his  father,"  would 
signify,  then  (according  to  the  explanation  of  Hilgenfeld)  :  the  father  of 
the  devil  is  a  liar  and  his  father  none  the  less  so.  After  having  seen  the 
father  of  the  devil  make  his  appearance,  we  should  find  ourselves  here  in 
the  presence  of  his  grandfather !  All  this  phantasmagoria  vanishes  away 
before  a  single  comma  introduced  between  the  two  genitives  Trarp6g  (of  a 
father)  and  rov  6ia[36hw  (of  the  devil),  which  makes  the  second  substantive 
appositional  with  the  former,  and  not  its  complement.  The  necessity  of  this 
explanation  from  the  grammatical  standpoint  appears  from  the  opposi- 
tion to  ver.  41 :  "We  have  one  father  [who  is]  God,"  and  religiously  from 
ii.  16,  where  the  temple  of  the  God  of  the  Jews,  in  Jerusalem  (which,  accord- 
ing to  Hilgenfeld,  ought  to  be  the  house  of  the  devil's  father),  is  called  by 
Jesus  "  the  house  of  my  Father."  It  is  certainly,  therefore,  according  to, 
our  Gospel,  the  only  true  God  (xvii.  3)  who  is  worshiped  at  Jerusalem. 

Hilgenfeld  and  Reuss  rest  also  upon  the  words  of  x.  8 :  "  All  those  who 
came  before  me  are  thieves  and  robbers ;  "  they  think  that  Jesus  meant 
to  characterize  by  these  two  terms  all  the  eminent  men  of  the  Old  Cove- 
nant. Who  then  ?  The  patriarchs  and  Moses,  the  psalmists  and  the 
prophets  ?  And  that  in  a  book  in  which  the  author  makes  Jesus  say,  that 
to  believe  Moses  is  implicitly  to  believe  in  Him  (v.  46,  47) ;  in  which  He 
Himself  declares  that  Isaiah  beheld  in  a  vision  the  glory  of  the  Logos 
before  His  incarnation,  and  foretold  the  unbelief  of  the  people  towards 
the  Messiah  (xii.  38,  41) ;  in  which  the  words  of  a  psalmist  are  quoted  as 
the  word  of  God  which  cannot  be  broken  (x.  34,  35) ;  in  which  Abraham 
is  represented  as  rejoicing  exceedingly  at  the  sight  of  the  coming  of  the 
Christ  (viii.  56) !  No ;  the  quoted  expression  applies  simply  to  the  actual 
rulers  of  the  nation,  who  already  for  a  considerable  period  were  in  posses- 
sion of  power  at  the  time  when  Jesus  was  accomplishing  His  work  in 
Israel.  This  is  clearly  indicated  by  the  present :  elal,  are,  and  not,  were, 
as  the  word  has  sometimes  been  rather  thoughtlessly  translated.  "Those 
who  came  before  me  are  thieves  and  robbers." 

Reuss  maintains  that,  in  general,  no  expression  in  this  work  connects 
the  Church  in  a  more  special  way  with  Judaism :  and  Hilgenfeld  affirms 


132  BOOK   II.      THE   GOSPEL. 

that  this  work  "  breaks  every  bond  between  Christianity  and  its  Jewish 
roots."  And  yet  the  second  of  these  scholars  cannot  help  acknowledging 
what  tbe  first  tries  in  vain  to  deny  :  that  in  the  declaration  of  i.  11 :  "  He 
came  to  his  own,  and  his  own  received  him  not,"  the  author  really  speaks 
of  the  Jews,  considering  them,  he  himself  adds — "  as  the  people  of  God  or 
of  the  Logos."  '  No  doubt,  he  endeavors  afterwards  to  escape  from  the 
consequences  of  this  conclusive  fact,  but  by  means  of  subterfuges  which 
do  not  deserve  even  to  be  mentioned.  Moreover,  let  the  following  facts 
be  weighed:  The  temple  of  Jerusalem  is  "  the  house  of  the  Father"  of  Jesus 
|  Christ  (ii.  16) ;  salvation  comes  from  the  Jews  (iv.  22) ;  the  sheep  whom 
Jesus  gathers  from  the  theocracy  constitute  the  nucleus  of  the  true  Messianic 
flock  (x.  16);  the  Paschaf  lamb  slain  at  Jerusalem  prefigures  the  sacrifice 
of  the  Messiah,  even  in  the  minute  detail  that  the  bones  of  both  are  to  be 
preserved  unbroken  (xix.  36);  the  most  striking  testimony  of  the  Father 
on  behalf  of  Jesus  is  that  which  is  given  to  Him  by  the  Scriptures  of  the 
Old  Covenant  (v.  39).  Finally,  the  author  himself  declares  that  he  wrote 
his  book  to  prove  that  Jesus  is  not  only  the  Son  of  God,  as  he  is  so  often 
made  to  say,  but,  first  of  all,  the  Christ,  the  Messiah  promised  to  the  Jews 
(xx.  30,  31).2  The  Messianic  character  of  Jesus  is  expressly  pointed  out 
before  His  divine  character.  From  end  to  end,  our  Gospel  makes  the 
appearance  and  work  of  Jesus  the  final  evolution,  the  crowning  of  the 
Old  Covenant. 

As  to  all  the  passages  which  Hilgenfeld  alleges  with  the  design  of 
proving  that  Jesus  denies  to  Judaism  all  true  knowledge  of  God  (vii.  28; 
viii.  19 ;  xv.  21 ;  xvi.  25,  etc.),  they  do  not  prove  anything  whatever ;  it  is 
not  to  the  Jewish  religion  as  such,  it  is  to  the  carnal  and  proud  Jews  who 
surround  Him,  that  this  often  repeated  reproach  is  addressed,  that  they 
did  not  know  God,  the  God  who  nevertheless  had  revealed  Himself  to 
them.  The  prophets  had  all  spoken  in  the  same  way,  and  had  distin- 
guished from  the  mass  of  the  people  (this  people,  Is.  vi.  10)  the  elect,  "  the 
holy  remnant  "  (vi.  13).    They  surely  were  not,  for  this  reason,  anti-Jewish. 

The  charge  of  dualism,  directed  against  our  Gospel  by  Hilgenfeld  par- 
ticularly, falls  before  this  simple  remark  of  Hase:3  "A  moral  relation  is 
thereby  falsely  translated  into  a  metaphysical  relation."  Is  it  necessary  to 
find  asdualistic  notion  in  that  saying  of  Jesus :  "  To  you  it  is  given  to  know 
the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom ;'  but  to  them  it  is  not  given  "  (Matt.  xiii.  11)  ? 
or,  in  that  other,  ver.  38 :  "  The  good  seed  are  the  children  of  the  kingdom  ; 
the  tares  are  the  children  of  the  evil  one?"  or,  again,  in  the  contrast  which 
St.  Paul  makes,  1  Cor.  ii.  14,  15,  between  the  psychical  man  who  cannot 
understand  spiritual  things,  and  the  pneumatic  man  who  judges  all  things? 
Who  ever  dreamed,  because  of  such  words,  of  imputing  to  Jesus  and  to 
Paul  the  idea  of  two  human  races,  one  proceeding  from  God,  the  other 
from  the  devil.    The  Scriptures  teach  throughout  that  a  holy  power  and 

>  Einlcitunfl,  p.  723.  striking  out  this  term,  the  Christ ;  eomp.  Sa- 

2  It  is  curious  to  observe  how,  in  the  cita-  batier,   Encydop.,   p.  184.     There  are  other 

tion  of  this  passage,  our  critics  are  sometimes  examples  of  this. 

guilty  of  an   inconsiderate   inaccuracy   in  8  Geschlchte  Jesu,  p.  44.     , 


CHARACTERISTICS — THE  DISCOURSES.  133 

an  evil  power  act  simultaneously  on  the  heart  of  man,  and  that  he  can 
freely  surrender  himself  to  the  one  or  the  other.  The  more  emphatic  the 
choice  is  in  the  one  direction  or  the  other,  the  more  is  the  man  given  up 
to  the  moral  current  which  bears  him  away,  and  thus  it  may  happen  that 
on  the  path  of  evil  a  man  becomes  incapable  of  discerning  and  feeling  any 
longer  the  attraction  of  what  is  good.  Here  is  the  incapacity  which  Jesus 
so  often  charges  upon  the  Jews;  it  is  their  own  act;  otherwise,  why 
reproach  them  with  it,  and  to  what  purpose  call  them  again  to  repentance 
and  to  a  renewal  by  faith  ?  This  hardness  is  only  relative,  because  it  is 
voluntary  ;  Jesus  declares  this  most  expressly  in  that  so  profound  expla- 
nation of  Jewish  unbelief  (v.  44) :  "  How  can  ye  believe,  ye  who  receive 
your  glory  one  from  another,  and  seek  not  the  glory  which  comes  from 
God  only?"  If,  then,  they  cannot  believe,  it  is  because  they  will  not, 
because  they  have  made  themselves  the  slaves  of  a  good  which  is  opposite 
to  the  benefits  which  faith  procures, — of  human  glory.  This  dualism  is 
moral,  the  effect  of  the  will,  not  metaphysical  or  of  nature.  By  teaching 
otherwise,  the  author  would  contradict  himself;  for  has  he  not  said  in  the 
prologue  that  "  all  things  were  made  by  the  Logos,  and  that  nothing,  not 
even  a  single  thing,  came  into  being  without  Him  ?"  Undoubtedly,  Hil- 
genfeld  claims  that  the  existence  of  the  darkness,  i.  5,  not  having  been 
explained  as  caused  by  anything,  implies  the  eternity  of  the  evil  principle  ; 
but  following  upon  that  which  precedes  (the  creation,  the  primitive  state), 
it  is  altogether  natural  to  find  here  the  appearance  of  evil  in  humanity — 
the  fall,  as  it  is  related  after  the  creation  in  the  story  of  Genesis,  which  the 
author  follows,  as  it  were,  step  by  step. 

Baur  found  in  our  Gospel  the  spirit  of  Gnostic  Docetism,  which  would  be, 
no  less  than  dualism,  in  contradiction  to  the  spirit  of  the  Old  Testament. 
But  every  one  seems,  at  the  present  day,  to  have  abandoned  this  opinion, ' 
and  we  believe  that  we  can  remit  to  exegesis  the  charge  of  proving  the 
emptiness  of  it.1  In  order  to  maintain  it,  we  must  torture  the  meaning 
of  that  expression  in  which  the  whole  work  is  summed  up  :  "  The  Word 
was  made  flesh,"  and  must  reduce  the  force  of  it  to  this  idea :  The  Word 
was  clothed  with  a  bodily  appearance.  The  fourth  Gospel  throughout  repels 
this  mode  of  explaining  the  incarnation,  which  is  also,  up  to  a  certain 
point,  that  which  Reuss  attributes  to  it.  A  being  who  is  fatigued,  who  is 
thirsty,  whose  soul  is  troubled  at  the  approach  of  suffering,  and  who  must 
be  preserved  by  extraordinary  circumstances  from  the  breaking  of  his 
bones ;  a  being  who  rises  from  the  dead,  and  who  says  :  "  Touch  me  not," 
or,  again :  "  Reach  hither  thy  finger,"  has  certainly  a  real  and  material 
body,  or  the  author  does  not  know  what  he  is  saying. 

Hilgenfeld  discovers,  finally,  in  the  opposition  of  our  Gospel  to  Chilva-wi 
a  proof  of  its  anti-Judaic  spirit.  "  The  entire  Gospel,"  says  this  writer,  "  is 
planned  in  such  a  way  as  to  present  the  historical  coming  of  Christ  as  His 
only  appearance  on  the  earth."  But,  first,  it  is  false  to  regard  Chiliasm, 
the  expectation  of  a  final  reign  of  Christ  over  mankind,  as  the  mark  of  a 

1Sce  on  (he  passages  vii.  10  and  viii.  59. 


134  BOOK   II.      THE  GOSPEL. 

Judaistic  tendency.  Hase  rightly  says :  "  This  was  the  belief  of  nearly 
the  whole  Church  in  the  second  century,  and  even  till  far  on  in  the  third." 
But  further,  as  the  same  author  adds,  "our  Gospel,  while  turning  the 
attention  away  from  everything  which  delights  the  senses,  does  not  con- 
tradict that  hope."  We  have  seen  this,  indeed ;  with  many  repetitions, 
mention  is  made  of  a  glorious  resurrection  of  the  body  which  is  promised 
to  believers,  and  of  a  hist  day.  But  here,  as  in  all  things,  John  makes  it 
his  study  to  set  forth  the  spiritual  preparation  on  which  the  Synoptics 
had  not  dwelt,  rather  than  the  outward  results  described  by  the  latter  in 
so  lively  and  striking  a  way. 

We  have,  in  this  chapter,  developed  only  the  points  which  are  related  to 
the  characteristics  of  our  Gospel,  without  touching  upon  that  which  comes 
into  the  question  of  its  origin, — of  its  composition  by  this  author  or  by 
that.  It  is  in  studying  this  last  subject  that  we  shall  seek  for  the  origin 
of  the  notion  and  the  term  Logos.  .  What  concerned  us  at  this  point  was 
to  thoroughly  establish  the  relation  of  our  Gospel  to  the  Old  Covenant. 
This  relation  is  a  double  one,  as  we  have  proved  :  on  the  one  side,  the 
Johannean  Gospel  fully  recognizes  the  divinity  of  the  Old  Testament,  law 
and  prophets ;  on  the  other,  it  sees  in  the  work  and  teaching  of  Christ  a 
decided  superiority  to  the  old  revelations.  The  God  of  Israel  is  the  Father 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  but  the  patriarchal  and  prophetic  revelations 
only  made  Him  known  imperfectly.  It  is  the  only-begotten  Son,  repos- 
ing in  His  bosom,  who  has  come  to  reveal  Him  to  us.  "The  law  was 
given  by  Moses;"  it  prepared  its  faithful  subjects  to  receive  Jesus  Christ; 
but  it  is  only  in  Him  that  there  is  accorded  to  the  believer  a  divine  "  full- 
ness of  grace  and  truth  "  (i.  16-18).  The  Word  had  in  Israel  His  home, 
long  since  prepared  on  the  earth ;  but  the  new  birth  through  which  a 
man  obtains  the  life  of  God  is  impossible  except  through  faith  in  the 
Word  who  has  come  in  the  flesh  (i.  12,  13). 

The  evangelist  began  by  recognizing  in  Jesus  the  promised  Christ ; 
thence  he  rose  to  the  knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God  (i.  41 ;  vi.  69;  xvi.  28, 
29).    The  expression  in  xx.  31,  sums  up  this  development. 

I  3.  THE  STYLE  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 

It  remains  for  us  to  study  our  Gospel  from  a  literary  point  of  view. 
Tholuck,  in  the  introduction  to  his  brief  commentary,  has  well  set  forth 
the  unique  character  of  the  evangelist's  language.  There  is  nothing  analo- 
gous to  it  in  all  literature,  sacred  or  profane ;  childlike  simplicity  and 
transparent  depth,  holy  melancholy  and  vivacity  no  less  holy;  above  all, 
the  sweetness  of  a  pure  and  gentle  love.  "  Such  a  style  could  only  ema- 
nate," says  Hase,  "  from  a  life  which  rests  in  God  and  in  which  all  oppo- 
sition between  the  present  and  the  future,  between  the  divine  and  human, 
has  wholly  come  to  an  end. 

Let  us  try  to  state  precisely  the  peculiarities  of  this  style.1 

'It  is  impossible  to  treat  this  subject  with  does  in  the  Introduction  to  his  Commentary, 
more  acuteness  and  delicacy  than  Luthardt       2d  ed.,  1875,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  14-62. 


CHARACTERISTICS — THE  STYLE.  135 

1.  The  vocabulary,  upon  the  whole,  is  poor.  It  is,  in  general,  the  same 
expressions  which  reappear  from  one  end  to  the  other :  liglit  (<pc>c)  twenty-  J 
three  times ;  glory,  to  be  glorified  (Jc^a,  do^ea^ai)  forty-two  times ;  life,  to 
live  (,"<j>7,  Zw)  fifty-two  times ;  to  testify,  testimony  {uaprvpelv,  paprvpia)  forty- 
seven  times  ;  to  know  (yivuoKeiv)  fifty-five  times;  world  (i<6opos)  seventy-eight 
times ;  to  believe  {juoTeveiv)  ninety-eight  times ;  work  (ipyov)  twenty-three 
times ;  name  (dvopa)  and  truth  (afafteia)  each  twenty-five  times ;  sign  (arjpe'tov) 
seventeen  times.  Not  only  does  the  author  not  hesitate  to  repeat  these 
words  in  his  work,  but  he  does  this,  and  with  reiteration,  in  sentences  which 
are  very  closely  allied  to  one  another.  At  the  first  glance,  this  gives  to  his 
style  a  monotonous  character ;  but  only  at  the  first  glance.  These  expres- 
sions soon  compensate  the  reader  for  their  small  number  by  their  intrinsic 
richness.  They  are  not  at  all,  as  one  thinks  at  the  first  sight,  purely 
abstract  notions,  but  powerful  spiritual  realities,  which  can  be  contem- 
plated under  a  multitude  of  aspects.  If  the  author  possesses  in  his 
vocabulary  only  a  small  number  of  terms,  these  words  may  be  compared 
to  pieces  of  gold  with  which  great  lords  make  payments.  This  feature 
is  in  harmony  with  the  oriental  mind,  which  loves  to  plunge  into  the 
infinite.  The  Old  Testament  already  is  familiar  with  these  so  rich  expres- 
sions and  their  deep  meaning:  light,  darkness,  truth,  falsehood,  glory,  name, 
life,  death. 

2.  Certain  favorite  forms,  which,  without  precisely  offending  against  the 
laws  of  the  Greek  language,  are  nevertheless  foreign  to  that  language,  • 
betray  a  Hebraistic  mode  of  thinking.  Thus,  to  designate  the  most  inti-  i 
mate  spiritual  union,  the  use  of  the  term  to  know ;  to  indicate  moral 
dependence  with  respect  to  another  being,  the  terms  to  be  in  (eh<ai  h),  to 
dwell  in  (piveiv  h) ;  to  characterize  the  relation  between  a  spiritual  prin- 
ciple and  the  person  in  whom  it  is  incarnated,  the  expression  son,  the  son 
of  perdition  (vib$  r//c  anwleiaq);  certain  forms  of  a  purely  Hebrew  origin: 
to  rejoice  ivith  joy  {xa-pq-  xa'Pecv)>  for  ever  (e'f  T°v  «*&•**);  finally,  Hebrew 
words  changed  into  Greek  terms,  as  in  the  formula :  Amen,  amen  (aprjv, 
apijv),  which  is  found  only  in  John. 

3.  The  construction  is  simple  ;  the  ideas  are  rather  placed  in  juxtapo- 
sition, than  organically  fitted  together  after  the  manner  of  Greek  construc- 
tion. This  peculiar  feature  is  especially  observed  in  some  striking  ex- 
amples (i.  10;  ii.  9;  iii.  19;  vi.  22-24;  viii.  32;  xvii.  25),  where  it  would 
not  have  been  difficult  to  compose  a  truly  syntactical  sentence,  as  a  Greek 
writer  certainly  would  have  done.  With  this  altogether  Hebraic  form  are 
also  closely  connected  the  very  frequent  anacolittha,  according  to  which 
the  dominant  idea  is  first  placed  at  the  beginning  by  means  of  an  absolute 
substantive,  and  then  repeated  afterwards  by  a  pronoun  construed  in 
accordance  with  the  rules  ;  comp.  vi.  39 ;  vii.  38  ;  xvii.  2.  We  know  that 
these  cases  are  still  more  frequent  in  the  Apocalypse. 

4.  Notwithstanding  the  abundance  of  particles  belonging  to  the  Greek 
language,  the  author  only  makes  use  of  now  (61),  more  frequently  of  and 
(nai),  then  (ovv),  and  as  (<jf  or  nad6c).  M?i>,  which  is  so  common,  is  almost 
unknown  in  his  work.    I  think  that  it  appears  only  once  (xix.  24).    The 


136  BOOK  II.      THE  GOSPEL. 

and  and  then  take  the  place  of  the  vav  conversive  which  is,  in  some  sort, 
the  only  Hebrew  particle.  The  then  sets  forth  the  providential  necessity 
which  in  the  author's  view  binds  the  facts  together.  The  and  is  frequently 
used  in  cases  where  we  should  expect  the  particle  of  opposition  but;  thus  : 
"  The  light  shines  in  the  darkness,  and  the  darkness  apprehended  it  not  " 
(i.  5)  ;  or  again  :  "  And  they  have  seen  and  have  hated  both  me  and  my 
Father"  (xv.  24).  "  We  speak  that  which  we  know,  and  ye  receive  not  our 
testimony  "  (iii.  11).  Luthardt  acutely  observes  that  this  form  is  the  sign 
!  of  a  mind  which  has  risen  above  the  first  emotion  of  surprise  or  indigna- 
tion produced  by  an  unforeseen  result,  and  which  has  come  to  contemplate 
it  for  the  future  with  the  calmness  of  indifference,  or  with  a  grief  which 
has  no  bitterness.  The  use  of  the  particle  as  (comp.  for  example,  chap, 
xvii.)  is  inspired  by  the  necessity  of  setting  forth  the  analogies;  this 
feature  is  one  of  the  most  characteristic  ones  of  the  mind  which  created 
this  style.  This  tendency  goes  even  so  far  as  to  identify  the  earthly 
symbols  of  divine  things  with  these  latter :  "  I  am  the  true  vine;  I  am  the 
good  shepherd."  To  the  eyes  of  him  who  writes  thus,  the  reality  is  not 
the  earthly  phenomenon,  but  the  divine,  invisible  fact;  the  sensible 
phenomenon  is  the  copy. 

The  author  also  very  frequently  uses  the  conjuction  in  order  that  (Iva)  in 
a  weakened  sense,  and  one  which,  as  it  seems,  is  tantamount  to  the  simple 
notion  of  the  Latin  ita  ut,  so  that;  nevertheless,  we  think,  with  Meyer,  that 
this  is  only  apparently  the  case.  The  question  in  these  cases  is  of  a  divine 
purpose.  And  here  also  there  is  revealed  a  peculiarity  of  the  author's 
turn  of  mind :  the  teleological  tendency,  which  belongs  to  the  spirit  of 
sacred  historiography.  That  which,  to  the  eyes  of  men,  seems  only  an 
historical  result,  appears,  from  a  more  elevated  point  of  view,  as  the  real- 
ization of  the  design  of  God. 

5.  A  singular  contrast  is  observed  in  the  narrative  forms.  On  the  one 
hand,  something  slow,  diffuse, — for  example,  that  form  so  frequent  in  the 
dialogues:  "He  answered  and  said;"  or  the  repetition  of  proper  names, 
John,  Jesus,  where  a  Greek  writer  would  have  used  the  pronoun  (a  thing 
which  also  appertains  to  the  oriental  stamp  of  style  :  Winer,  Gram.  N.  T., 
I  65)  ;  or  again  that  dragging  construction,  in  virtue  of  which,  after  the 
statement  of  a  fact,  a  participle  with  its  dependent  words  comes  in  unex- 
pectedly, with  the  purpose  of  bringing  out  in  a  clearer  light  one  of  the 
aspects  of  the  fact  mentioned  (comp.  i.  12;  iii.  13;  v.  18  ;  vi.  71 ;  vii.  50) ; 
or  finally,  instead  of  the  finite  verb,  the  heavier  form  of  the  verb  to  be 
joined  with  a  participle,  a  form  which,  in  certain  cases,  is  undoubtedly 
founded  on  reasons,  as  in  the  classical  style,  but  which  is  too  frequently 
employed  here  not  to  be,  as  Thiersch  has  observed,  a  reproduction  of  the 
analogous  form  belonging  to  the  Aramaic  language; — and  on  the  other 
hand,  the  frequent  appearance  of  short  clauses  which  break  the  sentence 
as  if  by  an  abrupt  interruption :  "  And  Barabbas  was  a  robber  "  (xviii.  40) ; 
"  now  it  was  night  "  (xiii.  30);  "  it  was  the  tenth  hour"  (i.40);  <;  it  was  the 
Babbath  "  (v.  9) ;  "  Jesus  loved  Martha  and  Mary  "  (xi.  5) ;  "  Jesus  wept " 
(xi.  35).    Here  are  jets  of  an  internal  fire  which,  by  its  sudden  outbursts, 


CHARACTERISTICS — TIIE  STYLE.  137 

breaks  the  habitual  calmness  of  serene  contemplation.  Such  indeed  is 
the  Semite;  an  exciting  recollection  may  draw  him  all  at  once  out  of  the 
majestic  repose  with  which  he  ordinarily  thinks  it  fit  to  envelop  himself. 

6.  In  the  manner  in  which  the  ideas  are  connected  together,  we 
remark  three  characteristic  features:  Either,  as  we  have  seen,  a  brief, 
summary  word  is  placed  as  a  centre,  and  around  it  is  unrolled  a  series  of 
cycles,  which  exhaust  more  and  more,  even  to  its  most  concrete  applica- 
tions, the  primary  thought.  Of  there  is  a  whole  series  of  propositions 
without  external  connection,  as  in  the  first  twenty  verses  of  chap,  xv., 
which  all  follow  one  another  by  asyndeton  ;  it  seems  as  if  each  thought 
had  its  whole  value  in  itself  and  deserved  to  be  weighed  separately.  Or, 
finally,  there  is  a  bond  of  a  peculiar  nature  which  results  from  the  repeti- 
tion, in  the  following  clause,  of  one  of  the  principal  words  of  the  preced- 
ing, for  example,  x.  11;  xiii.  20;  xvii.  2,  3,  9,  11,  15,  1G ;  and,  above  all, 
i.  1-5.  Each  clause  is,  thus,  like  a  ring  linked  with  the  preceding  ring. 
The  first  two  forms  are  repugnant  to  the  Hellenic  genius,  the  third  is  bor- 
rowed from  the  Old  Testament  (Psalm  cxxi.,  and  Gen.  i.  1  fT.). 

7.  We  have  already  called  attention  to  the  figurative  character  of  thef 
style;  let  us  here  add  its  profoundly  symbolic  character;  thus  the  expres- 
sions to  draw,  to  teach,  in  speaking  of  God  ;  to  see,  to  hear,  in  speaking  of 
the  relation  of  Christ  to  the  invisihle  world ;  to  be  hungry,  thirsty,  in  the 
spiritual  sense.    It  is  always  the  oriental  and  especially  the  Hebraic  stamp. 

8.  We  will  only  cite  two  more  features ;  the  parallelism  of  the  clauses, 
which  is  known  to  be  the  distinctive  mark  of  the  poetic  style  among  the 
Hebrews,  and  the  refrain,  which  is  likewise  in  use  among  them.  At  all 
times  when  the  feeling  of  the  one  who  speaks  is  elevated,  or  his  soul  is 
stirred  by  the  contemplation  of  a  lofty  truth  to  which  he  is  bearing 
testimony,  these  two  forms  appear  in  the  Old  Testament.  It  is  exactly 
the  same  in  John.  For  the  parallelism,  see  iii.  11 ;  v.  37 ;  vi.  35,  55,  56 ; 
xii.  44,  45;  xiii.  1G;  xv.  20;  xvi.  28;  for  the  refrain,  iii.  15,  1G;  vi.  39,  40, 
44 ;  comp.  Gen.  i. :  "  And  the  evening  was,"  etc. ;  Amos  i.  and  ii. ;  and 
elsewhere,  especially  in  the  Psalms. 

What  judgment  shall  we  pass,  then,  on  the  style  and  literary  character 
of  this  work  ?  On  the  one  hand,  Penan  tells  us  :  "  This  style  has  nothing 
that  is  Hebraic,  nothing  Jewish,  nothing  Talmudic."  And  he  is  right,  if 
by  style  we  understand  only  the  wholly  external  forms  of  the  language. 
We  do  not  find  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  as  in  certain  parts  of  Luke  (in  the 
first  two  chapters,  for  example,  after  i.  5),  Hebraisms,  properly  so  called, 
imported  just  as  they  are  into  the  Greek  text  (thus  the  vav  conversivc), 
nor,  as  in  the  translation  of  the  LXX.,  Hebrew  terms  of  expression 
roughly  Hellenized.  On  the  other  hand,  a  scholar,  who  has  no  less  pro- 
foundly studied  the  genius  of  the  Semitic  languages,  Ewald,  expresses 
himself  thus :  "No  language  can  be,  in  respect  to  the  spirit  and  breath 
which  animate  it,  more  purely  Hehraic  than  that  of  our  author."  And 
he  is  equally  right,  if  we  consider  the  internal  qualities  <>f  the  style;  the 
whole  of  the  preceding  examination  has  sufficiently  proved  this. 

In  the  language  of  John,  the  clothing  only  is  Greek,  the  body  is  Hebrew ; 


138  BOOK   II.      THE   GOSPEL. 

or,  as  Luthardt  says,  there  is  a  Hebrew  soul  in  the  Greek  language  of  this 
evangelist.  Keim  has  devoted  to  the  style  of  the  fourth  Gospel  a  beauti- 
ful page  ;  he  sees  in  it  "  the  ease  and  flexibility  of  the  purest  Hellenism 
adapted  to  the  Hebraic  mode  of  expression,  with  all  its  candor,  its 
simplicity,  its  wealth  of  imagery,  and  sometimes,  also,  its  awkwardness. 
No  studied  refinement,  no  pathos ;  everything  in  it  is  simple  and  flowing 
as  in  life;  but  everywhere  at  the  same  time,  acuteness,  variety,  progress, 
scarcely  indicated  features  which  form  themselves  into  a  picture  in  the 
mind  of  the  reflective  reader.  Everywhere  mysteries  which  surround 
you  and  are  on  the  watch  for  you,  signs  and  symbols  which  we  should 
not  take  in  the  literal  sense,  if  the  author  had  not  affirmed  their  reality, 
accidents  and  small  details  which  are  found,  all  at  once,  to  be  full  of 
meaning;  cordiality,  calmness,  harmony;  in  the  midst  of  struggles,  grief, 
zeal,  anger,  irony ;  finally,  at  the  end,  at  the  farewell  meal,  on  the  cross, 
and  in  the  resurrection,  peace,  victory,  grandeur." 

From  this  study  of  the  historiographical,  theological  and  literary 
characteristics  of  our  Gospel,  it  follows  : 

1.  That  the  narrative  of  the  fourth  Gospel  bears,  both  with  respect  to 
the  facts,  and  the  discourses,  the  seal  of  historical  trustworthiness. 

2.  That,  while  marking  the  advance  of  the  Gospel  beyond  the  religion 
of  the  Old  Testament,  it  affirms  the  complete  harmony  of  the  two 
covenants. 

3.  That  though  Greek  in  its  forms,  the  style  is,  nevertheless,  Hebrew  in 
its  substance. 


BOOK  THIRD. 

THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 


We  come  to  the  principal  subject  of  this  study,  the  mode  of  composi- 
tion of  the  work  which  occupies  our  attention.  This  subject  includes  the 
following  four  points  :  1.  The  epoch  at  which  this  book  was  composed  ;  2. 
The  author  to  whom  it  is  to  be  attributed  ;  3.  The  place  where  it  had  its 
origin ;  4.  The  purpose  which  presided  over  its  composition. 

The  means  which  we  have  at  command  for  resolving  these  various 
questions  are,  besides  the  indications  contained  in  the  work  itself,  the 
information  which  we  draw  from  the  remains  of  the  religious  literature 
of  the  second  century,  from  the  canonical  collections  of  the  churches  of 
that  epoch,  and  from  the  facts  of  the  primitive  history  of  Christianity. 

The  remains  of  the  literature  of  the  second  century  are  few  in  number; 
they  resemble  the  fragments  of  a  shipwreck.  They  are,  first,  the  letter  of 
Clement  of  Rome  to  the  Church  of  Corinth,  about  the  end  of  the  first 
century  or  at  the  beginning  of  the  second,  and  the  so-called  Epistle  of 
Barnabas,  belonging  to  the  same  period.  After  this  come  the  letters  of 
Ignatius,  of  the  earlier  part  of  the  second  century,  provided  we  admit 
their  authenticity  either  in  whole  or  in  part,  and  the  letter  of  Polycarp  to 
the  Philippians,  of  a  little  later  date,  but  with  the  same  reservation.  The 
Shepherd  of  Hernias,  the  letter  to  Diognetus,  and  a  homily  which  bears  the 
name  of  the  Second  Epistle  of  Clement  follow  next  in  order.  The  date  of 
all  these  works  is  variously  fixed.  We  come  next  to  the  writings  of  the 
Apologists  about  the  middle  of  the  century ;  Justin  Martyr  with  his  three 
principal  works ;  Tatian,  his  disciple  ;  Athenagoras  with  his  apology,  mes- 
sage addressed  to  Marcus  Aurelius ;  Theophilus  and  his  work  addressed  to 
Autolycus ;  Melito  and  Apollinaris  with  the  few  fragments  which  remain 
of  their  writings ;  finally,  Irenxus  of  Lyons,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  and 
Tertullian  of  Carthage,  who  form  the  transition  to  the  third  century. 

All  these  writers  belong  to  the  orthodox  line.  Parallel  with  them  we 
find  in  the  heretical  line  Basilides  and  his  school ;  Marcion  ;  then  Valentinus, 
with  his  four  principal  disciples,  Ptolemy,  Heracleon,  Marcus,  and  Theodo- 
tus,  all  of  them  authors  of  several  works,  some  fragments  of  which  we  read 
in  Irenams,  Clement  and  Hippolytus ;  the  work  of  the  last-mentioned 
author,  recently  discovered  and  entitled  Philosophumena,  is  particularly  im- 
portant. Finally,  let  us  mention  the  Jewish-Christian  romance  called 
Clementine  Homilies. 

139 


140  BOOK   III.      THE   ORIGIN. 

The  canonical  collections  of  this  epoch  with  which  we  are  acquainted 
are  three  in  number :  That  of  the  Syrian  Church  in  the  translation  called 
Peschito  ;  that  of  the  Latin  Church  in  the  translation  which  bears  the 
name  of  Itala,  and  the  so-called  fragment  of  Muratori,  which  represents 
the  canon  of  some  Italian  or  African  Church  about  the  middle  of  the 
second  century. 

It  is  by  means  of  all  these  documents,  as  well  as  of  the  indications  con- 
tained in  the  Gospel  itself,  that  we  must  choose  between  the  following  four 
principal  dates  which  at  the  present  day  are  assigned  by  criticism  to  the 
composition  of  our  Gospel. 


CHAPTER  FIRST. 

THE  TIME. 


The  traditional  opinion,  in  attributing  this  book  to  the  Apostle  John,  by 
this  very  fact  places  its  composition  in  the  first  century,  towards  the  end 
of  the  apostolic  age. 

At  the  opposite  extreme  to  this  traditional  date  is  that  for  which  Baur, 
the  chief  of  the  Tubingen  school,  has  decided.  According  to  him,  our 
work  was  composed  between  160  and  170 ;  he  places  its  origin  in  special 
connection  with  the  Paschal  controversy  which  broke  out  at  that  epoch. 

The  disciples  of  Baur  have  gradually  moved  back  the  date  of  the  com- 
position as  far  as  the  period  from  130  to  155 :  Volkmar,  about  155  ;  Zeller 
and  Scholten,  150;  Hilgenfeld,  130-140;  thus,  a  quarter  of  a  century, 
nearly,  earlier  than  Baur  thought.  This  arises  from  the  fact  that  several 
of  these  writers  place  the  composition  of  our  Gospel  in  connection  with 
the  efflorescence  of  Gnosticism,  about  140. 

Many  critics,  at  the  present  day,  make  a  new  step  backward.  Holtz- 
mann  believes  our  Gospel  to  be  contemporaneous  with  the  Epistle  of 
Barnabas ;  Schenkel  speaks  of  115-120 ;  Nicolas,  Renan,  Weizsiicker, 
Reuss,  Sabatier,  all  regarding  the  fourth  Gospel  as  a  product  of  the  school 
in  which  the  Johannean  traditions  were  preserved  at  Ephesus,  fix  its  com- 
position in  the  first  quarter  of  the  second  century.  This  was  also  the 
opinion  of  Keim,  when  he  published,  in  1867,  his  great  work,  VHistoire  de 
Jesus  de  Nazara  ;  he  indicated  as  the  date  the  years  100-120  (p.  146),  and 
more  precisely  110-115  (p.  155).  More  recently,  in  his  popular  editions, 
he  has  come  back  to  the  date  of  Hilgenfeld  (130). 

Here  are  four  situations  proposed,  which  we  must  now  submit  to  the 
test  of  facts.  Shall  we  begin  with  that  which  is  most  advanced,  or  that 
which  is  most  remote  ?  In  our  preceding  edition,  we  adopted  the  former 
of  these  two  courses.  A  want  of  logic  has  been  noticed  in  this,  since,  in 
short,  the  facts  which  speak  against  the  earliest  dates  give  proof  a  fortiori 
against  the  most  recent  ones,  and  yet  they  are  not  pointed  out  until  after 
the  discussion  of  the  latter  has  already  taken  place.1    This  is  true ;  but 

1  Review  in  the  Chretien  ivangilique,  by  Prof.  Ch.  Porret 


THE  TIME — 160-170.  141 

we  have  confidence  enough  in  the  logic  of  our  readers  to  hope  that  they 
will  themselves  make  this  reckoning,  and  that  when,  for  example,  they 
reach,  in  the  discussion  of  the  date  140,  a  fact  which  proves  it  too  late,  they 
will  not  fail  to  add  this  fact  to  those  hy  which  the  dates  more  recent  than 
this  had  been  already  refuted.  We  continue  to  prefer  the  course  which 
is  chronologically  regressive,  because,  as  Weizsiicker  has  been  willing  to 
acknowledge,  it  gives  more  interest  to  the  exposition  of  the  tacts.  On  the 
progressive  path,  every  fact  giving  proof  in  favor  of  an  earlier  date  ren- 
ders the  discussion  respecting  the  more  recent  dates  unnecessary. 

160-170.— (Baur). 

Eusebius  declared,  in  the  first  part  of  the  fourth  century,  "  that  the  Gos- 
pel of  John,  well-known  in  all  the  churches  which  are  under  heaven  must 
be  received  as  in  the  first  rank  "  (Hist.  Eccl.,  iii.  24) ;  and  he  consequently 
reckoned  it  among  the  writings  which  he  calls  Homologoumena,  that  is  to 
say,  universally  adopted  by  the  churches  and  their  teachers.  When  speak- 
ing thus,  he  had  before  his  eyes  the  entire  literature  of  the  preceding  cen- 
turies collected  together  in  the  libraries  of  his  predecessor  Pamphilus,  at 
Caesarea,  and  of  the  bishop  Alexander,  at  Jerusalem.  This  declaration 
proves  that  in  studying  these  writings  he  had  found  no  gap  in  the  testi- 
monies establishing  the  use  of  our  Gospel  by  the  Fathers  and  the  churches 
of  the  first  three  centuries.  It  is  necessary  to  recall  to  mind  here  with 
what  exactness  and  what  frankness  Eusebius  mentions  the  least  indica- 
tions of  a  wavering  in  opinion  with  regard  to  the  Biblical  writings ;  for 
example,  he  does  not  fail  to  mark  the  omission  of  any  citation  from  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  in  the  principal  work  of  Irenaeus  (an  omission  which  ' 
we  can  ourselves  also  verify),  although  that  epistle  takes  rank,  according 
to  him,  among  the  fourteen  epistles  of  St.  Paul.  Let  us  suppose  that  he 
had  found  in  the  patristic  literature  up  to  the  date  160-170  an  entire  blank 
in  relation  to  the  existence  and  use  of  our  Gospel,  would  he  have  been  able 
in  all  good  faith  to  express  himself  as  he  does  in  the  passage  quoted? 

Origen,  about  220,  places  the  Gospel  of  John  in  the  number  of  the  four 
"which  are  alone  received  without  dispute  in  the  Church  of  God  which  is 
under  heaven  "  (Euseb.  H.  E.,  vi.  25).  Would  this  place  have  been  thus 
unanimously  accorded  to  it,  if  it  had  been  known  only  after  170? 

Undoubtedly,  Eusebius  and  Origen  are  not  the  bearers  of  the  tradition; 
but  they  are  the  founders  of  criticism  who  grouped  the  information  from 
the  preceding  centuries  and  evolved  from  it  the  preceding  summations  of 
the  case. 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  the  master  of  Origen,  is  already  in  a  little  dif- 
ferent position ;  he  collected  the  items  of  information  which  were  trans- 
mitted to  him  by  the  presbyters  whose  line  of  succession  is  connected  with 
the  apostles  (anb  rtiv  avknadev  Trpeofivripuv).     In  speaking  thus,  he  is  thinking  / 
especially  of  Pantoenus,  a  missionary  in  India,  who  died  in  189.    The  fol-J 
lowing  is  the  information  which  had  come  to  him  through  those  venerable  ' 
witnesses :  "  John  received  the  first  three  Gospels,  and  observing  that  the 


142  BOOK    III.      THE  ORIGIN. 

corporeal  things  (the  external  facts)  of  our  Lord's  life  had  been  recorded 
therein,  he,  being  urged  by  the  prominent  men  of  the  Church,  wrote  a 
spiritual  Gospel "  (Euseb.  H.  E.,-vi.  14).  Could  Clement,  who  wrote  about 
190,  have  spoken  thus  of  a  work  which  had  been  in  existence  only  twenty 
or  twenty-five  years?  He  must,  for  this  to  be  so,  have  invented  this  tra- 
dition himself.  Let  us  add  that  in  another  passage  (Strom,  iii.,  p.  465), 
when  quoting  a  saying  of  Jesus  contained  in  an  uncanonical  gospel,  called 
the  Gospel  of  the  Egyptians,  he  makes  this  reservation  :  "  that  we  do  not 
find  this  saying  in  the  four  Gospels  which  have  been  transmitted  tons7'  (ti> 
rolg  irapadedo/iivoig  yiuv  Terrapaiv  evayychioii;).  The  contrast  which  Clement  here 
establishes,  clearly  shows, that,  from  the  standpoint  of  tradition,  there  was 
a  radical  difference  between  the  Gospel  of  John  and  a  gospel  such  as  that 
of  the  Egyptians. 

Tertullian,  born  about  160,  frequently  cites  our  Gospel  as  being  an 
authority  in  the  whole  Church.  Would  this  be  possible  if  this  Father 
and  this  work  were  born  in  the  same  year,  the  one  in  Asia,  the  other  in 
Africa  ?  Let  us  notice  that  he  quotes  it  according  to  a  Latin  translation 
of  which  he  says  (Ad.  Prax.) :  "  It  is  in  use  among  our  people  (In  usu 
est  nostrorum)."  And  not  only  was  it  in  use  and  so  held  in  respect,  that 
Tertullian  did  not  feel  free  to  turn  aside  from  it,  even  when  he  was  not  in 
accord  with  it,1  but  also  this  Latin  translation  had  already  taken  the  place 
of  another  earlier  one  of  which  Tertullian  says  (De  Monogam,  c.  11)  "  that 
it  has  fallen  into  disuse  (In  usum  exiii)!''  And  yet  all  this  could  have 
occurred  between  the  birth  of  this  Father  and  the  time  when  he  wrote! 

Irenasus  wrote  in  Gaul,  about  185,  his  great  work  Against  Heresies. 
More  than  sixty  times  he  quotes  our  Gospel  in  it  with  the  most  complete 
conviction  of  its  apostolic  origin.  He  who  acts  thus  respecting  it  was  born 
in  Asia  Minor  about  the  year  130,  and  had  spent  his  youth  there  in  the 
school  of  Polycarp,  the  friend  and  disciple  of  St.  John.  How  could  he, 
without  bad  faith,  have  dated  from  the  apostolic  age  a  Gospel  which  had 
not  been  in  existence  more  than  fifteen  to  twenty  years  at  the  moment 
when  he  was  writing,  and  which  he  had  never  heard  spoken  of  in  the 
churches  where  he  had  spent  his  youth  and  which  must  have  been  the 
cradle  of  this  work  ?  In  177,  Irenseus  drew  up,  on  the  part  of  the  churches 
of  Vienne  and  Lyons,  a  letter  to  the  churches  of  Asia  and  Phrygia,  for  the 
purpose  of  giving  them  an  account  of  the  terrible  persecution  which  had 
just  smitten  them  under  Marcus  Aurelius.  This  letter  has  been  pre- 
served to  us  by  Eusebius  (H.  E.,  v.  1).  It  says,  speaking  of  one  of  the 
martyrs,  "Having  the  Paraclete  within  him;"  and  in  another  place: 
"  Thus  was  the  word  uttered  by  our  Lord  fulfilled,  that  the  time  shall  come 
when  he  who  killeth  you  will  think  that  he  doeth  God  service."  These  are 
two  quotations  from  John  (xiv.  26  and  xvi.  2).  Thus,  about  ten  years  after 
the  time  of  composition  indicated  by  Baur,  quotations  were  taken  in  Gaul 
from  our  Gospel  as  if  from  a  writing  possessing  canonical  authority ! 

About  180,  Theophilus,  bishop  of  Antioch,  addresses  to  his  heathen 

*R6nsch,  Das  Sprachidiom  der  urchristlichen  ltala  und  der  catholischen  Vulgata,  1869,  pp.  2-4. 


THE   TIME — 1G0-170.  143 

friend  Autolycus  an  apology  for  Christianity  ;  he  quotes  in  it  the  prologue 
of  John,  expressing  himself  thus  (ii.  22) :  "  This  is  what  the  holy  writings 
and  all  the  men  animated  by  the  spirit  teach  us,  among  wlwm  John  says  " 
(John  i.  1  follows).  Can  it  be  admitted,  that  only  hfteen  to  twenty  years 
after  the  appearance  of  our  Gospel,  the  bishop  of  Antioch  spoke  in  this 
way?  He  so  fully  placed  it  in  the  rank  of  the  other  three,  which  were 
received  everywhere  and  at  all  times,  {hat  he  had  published  a  Harmony 
of  the  Gospels,  which  Jerome  describes  to  us  (Be  Vir.  25)  as  "  uniting  in  a 
single  work  the  words  of  the  four  Gospels  (quatuor  evangeliorum  in  unum 
opus  dicta  compingens).''  The  adversaries  of  the  authenticity  bring 
forward  the  circumstance,  it  is  true,  that  here  is  the  first  instance  in 
Which  the  author  of  our  Gospel  is  designated  by  name.  But  what  does 
so  accidental  a  fact  prove  ?  Irenams  is  the  first  ecclesiastical  writer  who 
names  St.  Paul  as  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  Would  it 
be  necessary  to  conclude,  from  this  fact,  that  the  belief  in  the  apostolic 
authorship  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  began  only  at  that  moment  to 
dawn  on  the  mind  of  the  Church?  As  it  was  not  up  to  that  time  the 
custom  to  quote  textually,  so  also  it  was  not  the  custom  to  quote  with  a 
designation  of  the  author. 

Apoll  maris,  bishop  of  Hierapolis  in  Phrygia,  about  170,  contended 
against  the  opinion  of  persons  who  celebrated  tbe  Holy  Passover  Supper 
on  the  evening  of  the  14th  of  Nisan,  at  the  same  time  that  the  Jews  ate 
their  Passover  meal ;  for,  as  they  alleged,  according  to  the  Gospel  of 
Matthew,  Jesus  had  eaten  the  Passover  on  that  evening  with  His  disciples, 
and  He  had  not  been  crucified  until  the  next  day.  Apollinaris  made  reply 
to  this  in  two  ways : l  1.  That  this  view  "was  in  contradiction  to  the  law ; " 
since,  according  to  the  law,  the  Paschal  lamb  was  slain  on  the  14th,  and 
not  on  the  15th  ;  it  was  consequently  on  that  day  that  the  Christ  must  die; 
2.  That  if  this  view  was  well  founded,  "  the  Gospels  would  contradict  each 
other."  This  second  remark  can  only  refer  to  the  account  in  tbe  Gospel 
of  John,  which  places  the  death  of  Jesus  on  the  14th,  and  not  the  15th,  as 
the  Synoptics  appear  to  do.  Thus,  in  170,  Apollinaris  rested  upon  the  fourth 
Gospel  as  on  a  perfectly  recognized  authority,  even  on  the  part  of  his  ad- 
versaries, and  yet  at  this  same  epoch,  according  to  Baur,  it  began  to  circu- 
late as  an  altogether  new  work  !  This  critic  has  endeavored,  to  be  sure,  to 
wrest  this  passage  from  its  natural  meaning ;  but  this  attempt  has  been 
unanimously  discarded.  Besides,  the  same  Apollinaris  in  still  another 
passage,  also,  adduces  the  fourth  Gospel.  He  calls  Jesus,  "  The  one  whose 
sacred  side  was  pierced  and  who  poured  forth  from  His  side  water  and 
blood,  the  word  and  the  Spirit;  " 2  comp.  John  xix.  34. 

At  the  same  period  Melito,  bishop  of  Sardis,  wrote  also  on  the  same 
subject.  Otto  (in  the  Corpus  apologet.,  vol.  ix.)  has  published  a  fragment 
from  this  Father,  in  which  it  is  said  that  "  Jesus,  being  at  once  perfect 
God  and  man,  proved  his  divinity  by  his  miracles  in  the  three  years  which 

1  Chronicon  paschale  (ed,  Dlndorf  I.,  p.  14):  cracria^eii/  SoKtl  tear'  avTOu?  ra  tvayyikia.  , 
o6ev  aavy.fytavo'i    re  von<f  q    vdrjcris  avTuif   (tai  2  Citron,  pasch.,  p.  14. 


144  BOOK   III.      THE   ORIGIN. 

followed  his  baptism,  and  his  humanity  during  the  thirty  years  which 
preceded  it."  Those  three  years  of  ministry  can  come  only  from  the 
Johannean  narration. 

About  the  same  time  (in  176),  Athenagoras  thus  expresses  himself  in 
his  apology  addressed  to  the  Emperor  Marcus  Aurelius :  "  The  Son  of 
God  is  the  Word  of  the  Father;  by  him  all  things  were  made."  Here  is 
an  undeniable  quotation ;  Volkmar  himself  acknowledges  it. 

There  is  the  same  use  of  the  fourth  Gospel  on  the  part  of  the  heretics  of 
this  period,  particularly  on  the  part  of  the  disciples  of  Valentinus.  One 
of  them,  Ptolemy  (in  a  fragment  preserved  by  Irenaeus),  recalled  in  these 
words  the  passage  in  John  xii.  27  :  "  Jesus  said :  And  what  shall  I  say?  I 
know  not."  He  maintained  (also  according  to  Irenaeus)  that  the  Apostle 
John  himself  had  taught  at  the  beginning  of  his  Gospel  the  existence  of 
the  first  Ogdoad  (the  foundation  of  the  doctrine  of  Valentinus).  Irenaeus 
and  Epiphanius  have  preserved  for  us  his  letter  to  Flora,  in  which  he 
cites  John  i.  3  in  these  words :  "  The  apostle  declares  that  the  creation  of 
the  world  belongs  to  the  Saviour,  inasmuch  as  all  things  were  made  by 
him  and  nothing  was  made  without  him."  In  the  fragments  of  Theodotus 
preserved  in  the  works  of  Clement  of  Alexandria,  there  are  found  seventy- 
eight  quotations  from  the  New  Testament,  of  which  number  twenty-six 
are  taken  from  the  Gospel  of  John.1  The  fact  most  important  to  be  cited 
here  is  the  commentary  which  Heracleon  wrote  on  the  fourth  Gospel. 
At  what  time?  About  the  year  200,  Volkmar  asserts ;  but  Origen,  who 
refuted  this  work,  calls  its  author  a  familiar  acquaintance  of  Valentinus 
{OvalsvTivov  yvupi^oq) ;  now  the  latter  taught  between  140  and  160.  Yes, 
replies  Volkmar,  but  Heracleon  is  not  at  all  mentioned  by  Irenaeus,  which 
proves  that  he  lived  after  185,  the  date  at  which  the  latter  wrote  against 
the  heretics  of  his  time.  This  assertion  is,  as  Tischendorf  has  shown,  an 
error  of  fact  arising  simply  from  the  omission  of  the  name  of  Heracleon 
in  the  registers  of  names  in  the  editions  of  Massuet  and  Stieren,  at  the 
end  of  Irenaeus'  work.  In  fact,  this  Father  expressly  says  ii.  4 :  "  and  all 
the  other  iEons  of  Ptolemy  and  Heracleon."  This  latter  person  lived  and 
wrote,  therefore,  before  Irenaeus — at  the  latest,  about  170  or  even  160. 
And  what  did  he  write?  A  continuous  commentary  on  the  Gospel  of 
John.-  This  single  fact  implies,  that  our  Gospel  enjoyed  in  the  Church  at 
that  period  an  authority  which  was  of  long  standing  and  general.  For 
men  do  not  comment  except  on  a  book  which,  up  to  a  certain  point,  gives 
law  to  every  one.  How  long  a  time  must  have  elapsed,  therefore,  since 
this  work  was  composed !  Moreover,  Irenaeus  (iii.  12, 12),  testifies  that  the 
Valentinians  "  made  abundant  use  of  the  Gospel  of  John  "  (eo  quod  est 
secundum  Johannem  plenissime  utentes). 

The  Clementine  Homilies  which  are  located  about  the  year  160,2  express 
themselves  thus  (iii.  52) :  "  This  is  the  reason  why  the  true  prophet  has 
said :  I  am  the  gate  of  life  {$  ttvIt/  ttjs  C^m) ;  he  who  enters  through  me 
enters  into  life  .  .  .    My  sheep  hear  my  voice  (ja  tfia  ^{to^ara  anovei  ttjc 

»  Hofstede  de  Groot,  Basilides,  p.  102.  *Keim  himself,  I.,  p.  137.    ' 


THE  TIME— 160-170.  145 

knyq  Qwvfft)."  This  is  an  evident  quotation  from  John  x.  3,  9,  27 ;  but  it  is 
not  enough  to  make  Baur,  Scholten,  Volkmar,  Hilgenfeld,  etc.,  admit  the 
use  of  the  Johannean  Gospel  by  the  vehement  Judaizing  writer  who  com- 
posed this  pamphlet  against  the  doctrine  and  person  of  St.  Paul.  The 
discovery  made  by  Dresscl,  in  1853,  of  the  end  of  this  book  as  yet  unknown, 
was  needed  to  cut  short  all  critical  subterfuges.  In  the  nineteenth  homily, 
chap,  xxii.,  there  is  found  this  unquestionable  quotation  from  the  story  of 
the  man  born  blind  related  in  the  ninth  chapter  of  John :  "  This  is  the 
reason  why  our  Lord  also  replied  to  those  who  asked  him  :  Did  this  man 
sin,  or  his  parents,  that  he  was  born  blind? — Neither  did  this  man  sin  nor 
his  parents,  but  that  through  him  might  be  manifested  the  power  of  God 
healing  the  faults  of  ignorance."  The  slight  modification  which  the  author 
of  the  Homilies  introduces  into  the  last  words  of  this  Johannean  saying  is 
connected  with  the  particular  idea  which  he  is  endeavoring  to  make 
prominent  in  this  passage.  If  Volkmar  finds  herein  a  reason  for  denial 
even  in  the  presence  of  such  a  quotation,  Hilgenfeld,  on  the  contrary, 
frankly  says  (Einl,  p.  734) :  "  The  Gospel  of  John  is  employed  without 
scruple  even  by  the  adversaries  of  the  divinity  of  Christ,  such  as  the  author 
of  the  Clementines."  What,  then,  must  have  been  the  authority  of  a  book 
which  even  the  adversaries  of  the  teaching  contained  in  the  work  used  in 
this  way !  Here  is  what  occurred  in  160,  and  yet  Baur  tries  to  maintain 
that  this  work  was  composed  between  160  and  170! 

A  heathen  philosopher,  Celsus,  wrote  a  book  entitled  The  True  Word 
(16yo$  afoiOfc),  to  controvert  Christianity;  he  wished,  he  said,  to  slay  the 
Christians  "  with  their  own  sword,"  that  is  to  say,  to  refute  Christianity  by 
the  writings  of  the  very  disciples  of  its  founder.  He  started  in  his  work, 
therefore,  from  the  universally  acknowledged  authenticity  of  our  Gospels. 
Did  he  make  use  of  the  fourth  Gospel  also  with  this  purpose?  Certainly; 
for  he  recalls  the  demand  which  the  Jews  addressed  to  Jesus  in  the  temple 
to  prove  by  a  sign  that  He  was  the  Son  of  God  (John  ii.  18).  He  com- 
pares the  water  and  the  blood  which  flowed  from  the  body  of  Jesus  on  the 
cross  (John  xix.,  34),  to  that  sacred  blood  which  the  mythological  stories 
made  to  flow  from  the  body  of  the  blessed  gods.  He  speaks  of  the  appear- 
ance to  Mary  Magdalene  (that  izapoiajpoq  woman)  near  the  sepulchre. 
He  sets  forth  this  contradiction  between  our  Gospel  narratives,  that, 
according  to  some  (ol  ftiv),  two  angels  appeared  at  the  tomb  of  Jesus, 
according  to  the  others  (ol  tie),  on  the  contrary,  only  one.  And  in  fact 
Matthew  and  Mark  speak  of  only  one  angel,  Luke  and  John  mention  two. 
The  use  of  John  in  this  passage,  which  Zeller  still  ventured  to  deny,  is  now 
acknowledged  by  Volkmar  himself,  but  this  avowal  ends,  as  usual,  in  a 
subterfuge :  "And  who  tells  us  that  Celsus  wrote  before  the  beginning  of 
the  third  century  ?  "  And  by  means  of  a  passage  of  Origen  the  purport  of 
which  is  incorrectly  given,  the  attempt  is  made  to  prove  that  that  Father 
spoke  of  Celsus  as  his  contemporary.1  Tischendorf  has  done  full  justice 
to  this  procedure.     It  was  enough  for  him  to  quote  Origen  correctly,  in 

1  Ursprung  uns.  Evang.,  p.  80. 
10 


146  BOOK   IH.      THE  ORIGIN. 

order  to  show  that  he  said  nothing  of  the  sort.  He  has,  in  addition, 
recalled  another  passage  of  this  Father,  where  he  expressly  designates 
Celsus  as  "  a  man  already  and  long  since  dead  (^6ij  nal  ndTuit  veKpov)." l 
If  we  adopt  the  latest  date  for  the  work  of  Celsus,  that  of  Keim  (in  178), 
it  still  remains  impossible  that  a  heathen  should  have  held  a  work  pub- 
lished only  eight  years  before  to  be  composed  by  one  of  the  disciples  of 
Jesus.     And  how  will  it  be  if  Celsus  lived  much  earlier? 

There  remain  to  us  three  documents  of  the  canonical  collections  of 
apostolic  writings,  already  existing  in  the  churches  of  the  second  cen- 
tury. In  Syria,  about  the  end  of  this  century,  a  translation  of  the  New 
Testament  in  the  Syriac  language  was  read,  and  our  fourth  Gospel  cer- 
tainly formed  a  part  of  it,  for  the  only  books  of  the  New  Testament  which 
were  wanting  in  this  collection  were,  according  to  unquestionable  data,  four 
of  the  Catholic  epistles  and  the  Apocalypse.  It  even  appears,  from  several 
fragments  in  the  Syriac  language  which  Cureton  has  published,  that  this 
translation  which  is  called  Peschito,  and  which  contained  the  Old  Testa- 
ment as  well  as  the  New,  had  been  already  preceded  by  another  more  an- 
cient one.2  At  the  same  period,  at  the  opposite  extremity  of  the  Church, 
in  Italy,  in  Gaul,  and  in  the  province  of  Africa,  the  Latin  translation  al- 
ready existed  of  which  we  have  spoken  in  connection  with  Tertullian.  In 
this  canonical  collection,  which  also  contained  the  Old  Testament,  the 
writings  of  the  New  Testament  seem  to  have  been  divided  into  five  groups : 
1.  The  body  of  the  four  Gospels,  the  evangelical  instrument,  collection  of  docu- 
ments; then,  the  apostolical  instruments,  to  wit:  2.  That  of  the  Acts;  3.  That 
of  Paul;  4.  That  of  John  (Apocalypse  and  1  John);  5.  A  group  of  disputed 
writings  (1  Peter,'  Hebrews,  Jude).  Is  it  possible  to  suppose  that  in  the 
last  quarter  of  the  second  century,  a  work  which  did  not  appear  until  be- 
tween 160  and  170,  had  already  been  translated  into  Syriac  and  into  Latin, 
and  had  become  possessed  of  canonical  dignity  in  countries  which,  so  to 
speak,  formed  the  antipodes  of  the  Church? 

The  famous  document  which  was  recovered  in  the  last  century  by  Mu- 
ratori  in  the  Library  of  Milan,  and  which  bears  the  name  of  that  scholar, 
is  located  between  160  and  170.  It  is  a  treatise  on  the  writings  which  were 
said  to  have  been  read  publicly  in  the  churches.  The  author  indicates  in 
it  the  custom  of  the  Church  of  Italy  or  of  Africa  to  which  he  belongs.  The 
Gospel  of  John  is  mentioned  in'it  as  the  fourth.  The  author  gives  an  ac- 
count in  detail  of  the  manner  in  which  it  was  composed  by  the  Apostle 
John,  and  brings  out  some  of  its  peculiarities.  This  is  what  was  written 
in  Italy  or  in  Africa  at  the  very  date  which  Baur  assigns  to  the  composi- 
tion of  this  Gospel ! 

It  will  not  be  surprising  to  any  one,  after  the  enumeration  of  these 
facts,  that  the  so-called  critical  school  has  judged  it  impossible  to  maintain 
the  position  chosen  by  its  master.  It  has  effected  its  retreat  movement 
throughout,  and  has  sought,  by  going  backward  in  the  second  century,  a 

1  Wann  wurden  unsere  Evangelien  verfasstj  "Remains  of  a  very  ancient  recension,  etc.; 

pp.  73,  74.  London,  1858. 


THE  TIME — 130-155.  147 

more  tenable  situation.  Before  we  follow  it,  let  us  note  the  fact  that 
between  160  and  170  the  fourth  Gospel  existed  in  the  Greek,  Latin  and 
Syriac  languages,  and  that  it  was  publicly  read  in  all  the  churches,  from 
Mesopotamia  even  to  Gaul.  Facts  like  these  imply,  not  only  two  or  three 
decades  of  years,  but  at  the  least  a  half  century  of  existence. 

(130-155.) 

Volkmar,  155;  Zeller,  Scholten,  150;  Hilgenfeld,  130-140;  Keim  (since 

1875),  130. 

Instead  of  the  fifty  years  which  Ave  ask  for  in  order  to  explain  the  facts 
which  we  have  just  mentioned,  only  twenty  or  thirty  are  granted  us.  Let 
us  see  whether  this  concession  is  sufficient  to  account  for  the  facts  which 
we  have  yet  to  point  out.  Our  means  for  guiding  our  course  in  the 
examination  of  this  new  date  are  the  writings  of  Justin  Martyr,  the 
Montanist  movement,  and  the  two  great  Gnostic  systems  of  Marcion  and 
Valentinus. 

Justin,  born  in  Samaria,  had  traversed  the  Orient  and  then  had  come 
to  Rome  to  establish  a  school  of  Christian  instruction,  about  140.  There 
remain  to  us  three  generally  acknowledged  works  of  his  :  the  greater  and 
smaller  Apology,  which,  since  the  labors  of  Volkmar,  are  ordinarily  regarded 
as  dating,  the  first  from  147 ;  the  second,  a  supplement  to  the  first,  from 
one  of  the  succeeding  years;  they  are  addressed  to  the  emperor  and 
the  senate.  The  third  work  is  the  Dialogue  with  Trypho  the  Jew;  it  is  the 
account  of  a  public  debate  held  at  Ephesus.  It  is  a  little  later  than  the 
Apologies.     Justin  was  put  to  death  in  166. 

In  these  three  works  the  author  cites  seventeen  times,  as  the  source  of 
the  facts  of  Jesus'  history  which  are  alleged  by  him,  writings  entitled, 
Memoirs  of  the  Apostles  (aTro/ivTifiovEvjjaTa  tuv  anoaT61uv),1  and  the  decisive 
question,  in  the  matter  which  occupies  us,  will  be  whether  the  fourth 
Gospel  was  in  the  number  of  the  writings  comprised  in  this  collection. 

In  order  to  understand  the  importance  of  the  question  here  proposed, 
we  must  recall  to  mind  the  fact  that  the  writings  cited  by  Justin  as  his 
authorities  were  not  only  his  private  property.  According  to  tlie  famous 
passage  of  the  first  Apology  (i.  67),  in  which  Justin  describes  the  worship 
of  the  Christians  in  the  first  half  of  the  second  century,  the  Memoirs  of 
the  Apostles  were  read  every  Sunday  in  the  public  assemblies  of  the 
Church,  side  by  side  with  the  books  of  the  prophets;2  and  it  is  very  evi- 
dent that  this  description  does  not,  in  the  writer's  thought,  apply  only  to 
the  worship  celebrated  by  the  Church  of  Rome,  but  to  that  of  Christendom 
generally  ;  this  follows  from  the  expressions  used  by  him  :  "  AU  those  tvho 
dwell  in  the  toivns  and  in  the  country  meet  together  in  one  place."    Justin 

1  Apol.  i.  33:  fifi;  (ft ;  Dial.,  88;  101;  102;  103  country  meet  together    in   one  place,   and 

(twice);  104;  105  (3  times);  106  (3  times).  the  Memoirs  of  the  .Apostles  and  the  writings 

a"  On  the  day  called  the  day  of  the  Sun,  all  of  the  prophets  are  read,  according  as  the 

those  who  dwell  in  the  towns  and  in   the  time  permits ;  afterwards  ..." 


148  BOOK   III.      THE  ORIGIN. 

had  visited  Asia  Minor  and  Egypt ;  he  knew,  therefore,  how  the  worship 
was  celebrated,  as  well  in  the  East  as  in  the  West.  Moreover,  he  defended 
before  the  emperor,  not  only  the  Christians  of  Rome,  but  the  Church  in 
general.  Consequently,  what  he  says  in  this  passage  of  the  celebration  of 
public  worship,  and  in  several  others  of  that  of  baptism  (Apol.  i.  61)  and 
of  the  Holy  Supper  (Apol.  i.  66),  must  be  applied  to  the  whole  of  the 
Christendom  of  that  epoch. 

What,  then,  were  these  Apostolic  Memoirs  which  were  venerated  by 
the  churches  of  the  second  century  so  far  as  to  be  read  publicly  in  worship 
equally  with  the  book  which,  according  to  the  example  of  Jesus  and  the 
apostles,  the  Church  regarded  as  the  Divine  Word,  the  Old  Testament? 
Justin  does  not  indicate  to  us  the  particular  titles  of  these  writings ;  it  is 
our  task  to  determine  them. 

1.  First  of  all,  let  us  note  a  probability  which  rises  almost  to  certainty. 
We  have  seen  above  that  Irenseus,  who  wrote  thirty  years  after  Justin 
(1S0-185),  spoke,  in  Gaul,  of  our  four  canonical  Gospels  as  the  only  ones 
received  in  the  Church.  This  usage  was  already  so  fixed  at  his  time,  that 
he  calls  our  evangelical  collection  the  four-formed  Gospel  [rtrpaiiop^ov 
evayyiXtov),  and  that  he  compares  these  four  writings  to  the  four  Cherubim 
of  the  Old  Covenant  and  to  the  four  quarters  of  the  horizon.  They  form 
for  him  an  indivisible  unity.  Nearly  at  the  same  time,  Clement,  in  Egypt, 
also  calls  our  Gospels,  as  we  have  seen,  "  the  four  which  alone  have  been 
transmitted  to  us  "  (p.  141).  Theophilus,  in  Syria,  at  the  same  epoch,  com- 
poses a  Harmony  of  these  four  narratives  (p.l42f.).  Finally,  a  little 
earlier  still  (about  160),  the  fragment  of  Muratori,  enumerating  the 
Gospels  which  -are  adopted  for  public  reading,  expresses  itself  thus: 
"  Tliirdhj,  the  book  of  the  Gospel  according  to  Luke  .  .  .  ;  fourthly,  the 
Gospel  of  John  ..."  Then  there  is  nothing  more  with  regard  to 
writings  of  this  kind ;  it  passes  to  the  Acts  and  Epistles.  Can  it  be 
admitted  that  the  Apostolic  Memoirs,  of  which  Justin  tells  us  that  they 
were  generally  read  in  the  Christian  worship  twenty  or  thirty  years  before, 
were  other  writings  than  those  which  these  Fathers  and  the  churches  them- 
selves distinguished  thus  from  all  the  other  writings  of  the  same  kind,  or 
that  they  did  not,  at  least,  make  a  part  of  the  collection  to  which  the  Martyr 
already  assigned  a  place  in  the  worship  by  the  side  of  the  prophetic 
writings  of  the  Old  Testament?  To  this  end  there  must  necessarily  have 
been  wrought,  during  that  short  space  of  time,  a  revolution  in  Christian 
worship,  a  substitution  of  sacred  writings  for  sacred  writings,  of  which 
history  does  not  present  the  least  trace,  and  which  is  rendered  absolutely 
impossible  by  the  universality  and  publicity  of  the  use  of  the  Memoirs  of 
which  Justin  speaks,  and  by  the  stability  of  the  apostolic  usages  at  that 
period.  The  Fathers,  such  as  Irena?us,  were  at  hand  keeping  watch  over 
the  matter,  and  they  would  not  have  permitted  a  change  of  the  docu- 
ments from  which  the  Church  derived  its  knowledge  of  the  life  of  Jesus 
to  be  accomplished,  without  indicating  it. 

2.  A  special  fact  proves  a  still  more  direct  connection  between  Justin, 
on  the  one  side,  and  the  Fathers  of  a  little  later  date  (Irenseus,  etc.),  on 


THE  TIME — 130-155.  149 

the  other.  Justin  had  a  disciple  named  Tatian,  who  had  already,  before 
Theophilus,  composed  a  work  similar  to  his.  Eusebius  tells  us  (H.  E.  iv. 
19)  that  this  book  was  entitled  Diatessaron,  that  is  to  say,  composed  by 
means  of  the  four.1  Now,  according  to  the  report  of  the  Syrian  bishop 
Bar  Salibi  (xii.  cent.),  who  was  acquainted  with  this  work  since  he  quotes 
it  in  his  Commentary  on  the  Gospels,  this  writing  began  with  these  words 
of  John's  prologue  (i.  1) :  "  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word."  According 
to  the  same  author,  Ephrem,  the  well-known  deacon  of  Edessa  (died  in 
373),  had  composed  a  commentary  on  this  same  work  of  Tatian,  an  Arme- 
nian translation  of  which  has  been  recently  recovered  and  published 
(Venice,  187G).  This  translation  confirms  everything  which  the  Fathers 
have  reported  respecting  Tatian's  Harmony.  In  a  work  of  an  apocryphal 
character,  the  Doctrine  of  Addseus  (of  the  middle  of  the  third  century),  in 
which  the  history  of  the  establishment  of  Christianity  at  Edessa  is  related, 
it  is  said  :  "  The  people  meet  together  for  the  service  of  prayer  and  for 
[the  reading  of]  the  Old  Testament  and  [for  that  of  the]  New  in  the  Dia- 
tessaron." 2  This  work  of  Tatian,  therefore,  was  very  widely  spread  abroad 
in  the  East,  since  it  was  read  in  the  East,  even  in  the  public  worship, 
instead  of  the  four  Gospels.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  report  of  the  bishop 
of  Cyrus,  in  Cilicia,  Theodoret  (about  420).  He  relates  that  he  had  found 
two  hundred  copies  of  Tatian's  book  in  the  churches  of  his  diocese,  and 
that  he  had  substituted  for  this  Harmony,  which  was  heterodox  in  some 
points,  "the  Gospels  of  the  four  evangelists  (rd  tuv  Ter-dpuv  cvayy&ioTuv  avrtic- 
t/yayov  EvayyeXia)  " — thus,  our  four  separate  Gospels,  those  which  Tatian 
had  combined  in  a  single  one.  If  we  recall  to  mind  the  relation  which 
united  Tatian  to  Justin,  the  identity  of  the  Apostolic  Memoirs  of  the 
master  with  the  four  blended  in  one  by  the  disciple  cannot  be  doubted. 
Moreover,  in  his  Discourse  to  the  Greeks  Tatian  himself  quotes  Matthew, 
Luke  and  John ;  from  the  last,  i.  3  :  "All  things  were  made  by  him  "  (the 
Logos);  iv.  24:  "God  is  a  spirit;"  finally,  i.  5,  with  that  formula  which 
indicates  a  sacred  authority  :  "  This  is  that  which  is  spoken  (tovt6  eari  to 
eipTjfiEvov)  :  The  darkness  did  not  apprehend  the  light ;  .  •  .  now  the  light 
of  God  is  the  Word." 

3.  But  why,  if  it  is  so,  does  Justin  designate  these  books  by  the  unusual 
name  of  Memoirs,  instead  of  calling  them  simply  Gospels  ?  Because  he 
addresses  himself,  not  to  Christians,  but  to  the  emperor  and  senate,  who 
would  not  have  understood  the  Christian  name  of  Gospels,  which  was 
without  example  in  profane  literature.  Every  one,  on  the  other  hand, 
was  acquainted  with  the  airo/iivtifiovev/iaTa  {Memoirs)  of  Xenophon.  Justin 
has  recourse  to  this  ordinary  name,  exactly  as  he  substitutes  for  the 
Christian  terms  baptism  and  Sunday  the  terms  bath  and  day  of  the  Sun. 

'See  also  Epiphanius,  Haer.  xlvi.  1,  and  unum  ex  quatuor.    There  is,  thus,  here  cither 

Theodoret,  Haer.  Fab.  i.  20.  a  negligence  of  the  author,  or  perhaps  an 

*  In  the  Catena  of  Victor  of  Capua  (545),  allusion  to  quotations  of  Justin,  which  are 

the  work  of  Tatian  is  called  Diapente  "  com-  foreign  to  our  four  Gospels,  which  seemed  to 

posed  by  means  of  five."      But  immediately  him  to  imply  the  use  of  a  fifth  source, 
before,  the  same  author  has  described  it  as 


150  BOOK   III.      THE  OEIGIN. 

Finally,  Justin  himself,  in  one  of  the  passages  where  he  quotes  the  Me- 
moirs (Apol.  i.  4,  66),  adds  expressly :  "  which  are  composed  by  the  apostles 
and  called  Gospels  (a  naMrai.  evayyefaa),"  and,  in  another  passage  (Dial.  103) 
he  expresses  himself  thus  :  "  The  Memoirs  which  I  say  were  composed  by  the 
apostles  and  by  those  who  accompanied  them,"  which,  whatever  some  critics 
may  say,  can  only  apply  to  our  four  Gospels,  of  which,  as  the  fact  is,  two 
were  composed  hy  apostles  and  two  by  apostolic  helpers.  All  the  critical 
quibbles  will  not  alter  the  evidence  at  all. 

4.  But  let  us,  finally,  consider  the  quotations  taken  by  Justin  from  the 
Memoirs  themselves.  No  one,  at  the  present  day,  any  longer  denies  the  use 
of  the  three  Synoptics  by  this  Father.  In  1848,  Zeller  conceded  it  with 
respect  to  Luke  ;  in  1850,  Hilgenfeld,  with  respect  to  Matthew  ;  the  same, 
in  1854,  with  respect  to  Mark  ;  Credner  in  1860,  Volkmar  in  1866,  Schol- 
ten  in  1867,  have  acknowledged  it  with  respect  to  all  the  three.  The  Gos- 
pel of  John  remains.  Keim,  already  in  1867  (vol.  i.,  p.  138),  wrote  :  "  It 
is  easy  to  show  that  the  Martyr  had  under  his  eyes  a  whole  series  of 
Johannean  passages,"  and  Hilgenfeld  said  in  1875  (Einl.  p.  734) :  "  The 
first  trace  of  the  Gospel  of  John  is  found  in  Justin  Martyr."  Mangold,  in 
the  same  year,  formulates  thus  the  result  of  all  the  discussions  which  have 
recently  taken  place  respecting  this  point:  "That  Justin  knew  and  used 
the  fourth  Gospel  is  certain,  and  it  is  also  beyond  doubt  that  he  makes 
use  of  it  as  a  work  proceeding  from  the  Apostle  John."1  And  in  fact 
John's  doctrine  of  the  Logos  appears  in  all  the  writings  of  Justin;  this  is 
their  fundamental  peculiarity.  Let  us  quote  a  single  example  taken  from 
each  of  these  writings:  "His  Son,  the  only  one  who  may  be  properly 
called  Son,  the'  Logos  who  was  begotten  by  him  before  created  things, 
when  he  created  all  things  by  him,  ...  is  called  Christ "  (Apol.  ii.  6). 
"  The  first  power  after  God,  the  Father  and  Master  of  all,  is  the  Son,  the 
Word,  who,  having  in  a  certain  way  been  made  flesh,  became  a  man  (6f 
Tiva  rpdnov  aapKOTvoitjdelg  avdpuirog  yeyovev)"  (Apol.  i.  32).  Dial.  105:  "Because 
he  was  the  only  begotten  Son  of  the  Father  of  all  things  (jxovoyev^  on  rjv  r€> 
narpl  ruv  bXuv)."  The  relation  between  Justin  and  John  on  this  capital 
point  is  so  evident  that  Volkmar  has  been  obliged  finally  to  acknowledge 
it ;  but  he  extricates  himself  by  an  expedient  which  not  a  little  resembles 
a  clown's  trick.  According  to  him,  it  is  not  Justin  who  has  imitated  John  ; 
it  is  a  pseudo-John  who,  writing  about  155,  has  imitated  Justin,  whose 
writings  were  in  circulation  since  147-150.  Justin  had  drawn  the  first 
lineaments  of  the  Logos  theory;  the  false  John  has  developed  and  per- 
fected it.  "  But,"  answers  Keim  to  this  supposition,  "  who  can  seriously 
think  of  making  out  of  the  genial  and  original  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel 
the  disciple  of  a  mind  so  mediocre,  dependent,  disposed  to  the  work  of 
compiling,  and  poor  in  style,  as  the  Martyr?  "  We  will  add :  The  theology 
of  the  former  is  the  simple  expression  of  his  religious  consciousness,  of 
the  immediate  effects  produced  on  him  by  the  person  of  Jesus,  while,  as 
Weizsacker  has  clearly  shown,2  the  characteristic  trait  of  Justin  is  to  serve 

1  Qoztt.  gelehrte  Anzeigen,  5  u.  12,  Jan.  1881.  *  Jahrb.  fur  deutsche  Theol.,  18C7. 


THE   TIME — 130-155.  151 

as  an  intermediary  between  Christian  thought  and  the  speculations  which 
were  prevailing  at  his  epoch  outside  of  Christianity.  Justin  teaches  us 
that  the  Logos  comes  from  the  Father  as  a  tire  is  kindled  by  another  lire, 
without  the  latter  being  diminished;  he  explains  to  us  that  he  differs  from 
the  Father  in  number,  but  not  in  thought,  etc.,  etc.  How  can  one  venture 
to  affirm  that  Justin  surpasses  John  in  simplicity  ?  The  truth  is  that  John 
is  the  witness,  and  Justin  the  theologian.  John's  prologue — it  is  there  only 
that  there  is  any  question  of  the  Logos  in  our  Gospel — is  the  primordial 
revelation,  in  its  simple  and  apostolic  form;  the  writings  of  Justin  present 
to  us  the  first  effort  to  appropriate  this  revelation  to  oneself  by  the  reason. 
Besides,  let  us  listen  to  Justin  himself,  Dial.  105 :  "  I  have  previously 
shown  that  it  was  the  only  begotten  Son  of  the  Father  of  all  things,  his 
Logos  and  his  power,  born  of  him  and  afterwards  made  man  by  means  of 
the  Virgin,  as  we  have  learned  through  the  Memoirs."  Justin  himself  tells  us 
here  from  what  source  he  had  derived  his  doctrine  of  the  Logos ;  it  was 
from  his  Apostolic  Memoirs.  Hilgenfeld  has  claimed  that  Justin  did  not 
appeal  to  the  Memoirs  except  for  the  second  of  the  two  facts  mentioned 
in  this  passage :  the  miraculous  birth ;  but  the  two  facts  indicated 
depend  equally,  through  one  and  the  same  conjunction  (brt  that),  on 
the  verbal  ideas ;  I  have  shown,  and  as  we  have  learned.  Moreover,  the 
principal  notion,  according  to  the  entire  context,  is  that  of  the  only 
begotten  Son  (fiovoyevfe)  which  belongs  to  the  first  of  the  two  depend- 
ent clauses.1  Our  conclusion  is  expressly  confirmed  by  what  Justin  says 
(Dial.  48) ;  he  speaks  of  certain  Christians  who  were  not  in  accord  with 
him  on  this  point,  and  he  declares  that,  if  he  does  not  think  as  they  do,  it 
is  not  merely  because  they  form  only  a  minority  in  the  Church,  but  "  be- 
cause it  is  not  by  human  teachings  that  we  have  been  brought  to  believe 
in  Christ  [in  this  way],  but  by  the  teachings  of  the  holy  prophets  and  by 
those  of  Christ  himself  (rolg  did.  roe  TrpotpTjrciv  KrjpvxOclai  Kal  6C  avTov   didax- 

deim)."  Now,  where  can  we  find,  outside  of  the  Gospel  of  John,  the 
teachings  of  Christ  respecting  His  pre-existence  ?  Comp.  also  Apol.  i. 
46  :  "  That  Christ  is  the  first-born  Son  of  God,  being  the  Logos  of  whom 
all  the  human  race  is  made  participant — this  is  wliat  has  been  taught  us 
(cdi6dxdq/iEv)."  We  see  from  this  us,  which  applies  to  Christians  in  gen- 
eral, and  by  the  term  taught,  that  Justin  was  hy  no  means  the  author  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  incarnation  of  the  Logos,  but  that,  when  calling  Jesus 
by  this  name,  he  feels  himself  borne  along  by  the  great  current  of  the 
teaching  given  in  the  Church,  and  of  which  the  source  must  necessarily 
be  found  in  the  writings,  or  at  least  in  one  of  the  writings,  of  the  apostles 
of  which  he  made  use. 

5.  The  use  of  our  Gospel  by  Justin  appears,  finally,  from  several  par- 
ticular quotations,  Dial.  88 :  "And  as  men  supposed  that  he  [John  the 
Baptist]  was  the  Christ,  he  himself  cried  out  to  them  :  I  am  not  the  Christ, 


1  This  is  clearly  brought  out  by  Drummond,  all  this  development  is  occasioned  by  the 
Theological  Review  (vol.  xiv.  pp.  178-182,  comp.  expression  novoytvij?  in  Ps.  xxii.,  of  which 
Ezra  Abbot,  p.  43)  by  recalling  the  fact  that       Justin  is  here  giving  the  explanation. 


152  BOOK    III.      THE   ORIGIN. 

but  I  am  the  voice  of  one  crying  (ovk  elpl  6  Xpicrrbg,  <UAd  <j>uvfj  fiouv-og)." 
Comp.  John  i.  20,  23.  Hilgenfeld  acknowledges  this  quotation.  Dial.  69, 
Justin  says  that  Jesus  healed  those  who  were  blind  from  birth  (robg  Ik  yzvnfjq 
nripovg) ;  the  Gospel  of  John  alone  (ix.  1)  attributes  to  Him  a  healing  of 
this  kind ;  the  same  term  ek  yevcTTjg  is  used  by  John.  Another  interesting 
passage  is  found  in  Dial.  SS :  "  The  apostles  have  written  that,  when  Jesus 
came  out  of  the  water,  the  Holy  Spirit  shone  above  him  like  a  dove."  This 
is  the  only  case  where  Justin  uses  the  expression,  the  apostles  have  written. 
It  evidently  applies  to  the  two  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  John.  Dial.  29, 
Justin  proves  that  Christians  are  no  more  bound  to  the  Jewish  Sabbath, 
and  he  does  this  by  calling  to  mind  the  fact  that  God  governs  the  world 
on  that  day  as  well  as  on  the  others.  In  c.  27,  he  also  points  out  the  fact 
that  infants  are  circumcised  on  the  eighth  day,  even  though  it  falls  upon 
a  Sabbath  (nav  f/  i/fiipa  tuv  oajifiaTuv).  We  easily  recognize  here  the  relation 
to  John  v.  17  and  vii.  22,  23.  Apol.  i.  52,  Justin  quotes  the  words  of  Zach. 
xii.  10:  "  They  shall  look  on  Him  whom  they  pierced  (nai  tote  bipov-ai  slg  bv 
kZeK£VT7]oav)."  In  this  form  it  differs  both  from  the  terms  of  the  Hebrew 
text  ("  they  shall  look  on  me  whom  they  .  .  .  ")  and  from  that  of  the 
LXX :  "  They  shall  look  on  me  because  they  have  mocked  me."  Now  we 
read  this  same  passage  in  the  fourth  Gospel  exactly  in  the  form  in  which 
Justin  quotes  it  (John  xix.) :  bfovrat  Eig  bv  i^EKEVT7jaav.  Some  think,  no 
doubt,  that  Justin  may  have  derived  this  passage  from  the  book  of  the 
Apocalypse,  where  it  is  likewise  quoted,  i.  7 :  "  And  every  eye  shall  see 
Him,  and  they  also  who  pierced  Him."  But  Justin's  text  is  more  closely 
connected  with  that  of  the  Gospel.  Other  grounds  are  alleged,  it  is  true, 
such  as  the  possibility  of  an  ancient  variation  of  text  in  the  LXX.  j1  we 
shall,  therefore,  not  insist  much  upon  this  fact. 

Here,  on  the  other  hand,  is  an  important,  and  even  decisive  passage. 
Apol.  i.  61,  Justin  relates  to  the  senate  that  when  a  man  has  been  con- 
vinced of  the  truth  of  the  Gospel,  "  he  is  led  to  a  place  where  there  is 
water,  to  be  regenerated  like  the  believers  who  (have)  preceded  him ;  and 
that  he  is  bathed  in  the  water  in  the  name  of  God,  the  Father  and  Lord 
of  all  things,  and  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  "  for 
Christ  said :  "  Unless  ye  are  born  again  (av  pi)  avayEwqdrjTe),  ye  shall  not 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Now  that  it  is  impossible,"  continues 
Justin, "  for  those  who  have  once  been  born  to  enter  again  into  the  womb 
of  those  who  gave  them  birth,  is  evident  to  all."  The  relation  to  John  iii. 
3-5  is  manifest ;  it  appears  especially  from  the  last  words,  which  reproduce, 
without  any  sort  of  necessity  and  in  the  most  clumsy  way,  the  meaning 
of  the  objection  of  Nicodemus  in  John's  narrative  (ver.4).  Many,  however, 
deny  that  Justin  wrote  thus  under  the  influence  of  John's  narrative. 
They  allege  these  two  differences:  instead  of  the  term  employed  by  John, 
avudev  yEvvriQfjvai  (to  be  bom  from  above  or  anew),  Justin  says  avajEvvrjdijvai.  (to 
be  born  again)  ;  then,  for  the  expression  Kingdom  of  God,  he  substitutes 
Kingdom,  of  htavtn.    But  these  two  changes  do  not  have  the  importance 

»  See  Abbott  himself,  p.  46. 


THE  TIME— 130-155.  153 

which  some  critics  attribute  to  them.  As  to  the  first,  Abbot  proves  that 
it  is  found  also  in  Irenaeus,  Eusebius,  Athanasius,  Basil,  Ephrem,  Chry- 
sostom,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  Anastasius  Sin.,  as  well  as  in  most  of  the 
Latin  authorities  (renasci),  all  of  whom  made  use  of  the  Gospel  of  John 
and  yet  quote  this  passage  as  Justin  does.  Undoubtedly,  it  is  because  the 
term  avudev  yzvvr)Qfjvat  was  obscure,  and  subject  to  discussion,  and  because  it 
is  read  only  once  in  the  Scriptures,  while  the  other  is  clearer  and  more 
common  (1  Pet.  i.  3,  23 ;  ii.  2).  As  to  the  expression  Kingdom  of  heaven, 
it  arises  in  Justin  evidently  from  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  which,  from  a 
mass  of  proofs,  was  much  the  most  read  in  the  earliest  times  of  the  Church, 
and  in  which  this  term  is  habitually  employed.  Abbot  proves  that  this 
same  change  occurs  in  the  quotation  of  this  passage  in  the  Greek  and 
Latin  Fathers,  all  of  whom  had  John  in  their  hands.  But  the  following 
is  a  more  serious  objection,  namely :  that  this  same  saying  of  Jesus  ia 
found  quoted  in  the  Clementine  Homilies  (ix.  26)  with  precisely  the  same 
alterations  as  in  Justin,  which  seems  to  prove  that  the  two  authors  bor- 
rowed from  a  common  source  other  than  John ;  for  example,  from  the 
Gospel  of  the  Hebrews.  Here  is  the  passage  from  the  Clementines  ;  the 
reader  can  judge  :  "  This  is  what  the  true  prophet  has  affirmed  to  us  with  an 
oath  :  Verily  I  say  unto  you  that  unless  you  are  born  again  of  living  water 
(eav  fit)  avayEvvr]BrjTe  iSan  ^uvtl),  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  the  Son  and  the 
Holy  Spirit,  you  shall  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  We  see 
that  the  difference  between  Justin  and  the  Clementines,  as  Abbot  says,  is 
much  greater  than  that  between  these  two  works  and  John.  The  reason 
is,  because  the  text  of  the  Clementines  is  influenced  not  only,  like  that  of 
Justin,  by  Matt,  xviii.  3,  but  especially  by  Matt,  xxviii.  19  (the  formula  of 
baptism).1 

Let  us,  finally,  recall  a  quotation  from  the  first  Epistle  of  John  which 
is  found  in  Justin.  Dial.  c.  123,  he  says:  ''All  at  once  we  are  called  to  be- 
come sons  of  God,  and  we  are  so,"  which  recalls  1  John  iii.  1  (according  to 
the  reading  adopted  at  the  present  day  by  many  critics)  :  "  Behold,  what 
love  God  has  had  for  us,  that  we  should  be  called  children  of  God;  and 
we  are  so."    Hilgenfeld  acknowledges  this  quotation. 

How  is  it  conceivable  that,  in  the  face  of  all  these  facts,  Reuss  can 
express  himself  thus  (p.  94) :  "  We  conclude  that  Justin  did  not  include 
the  fourth  Gospel  among  those  which  he  cites  generally  under  the  name 
of  Memoirs  of  the  Apostles."  What  argument,  then,  is  powerful  enough 
to  neutralize  to  his  view  the  value  of  the  numerous  quotations  which  we 
have  just  alleged?  "  Justin,"  he  says,  "  did  not  have  recourse  to  our  Gos- 
pel, as  would  have  been  expected,  when  he  wished  to  establish  the  histor- 
ical facts  of  which  he  was  desirous  to  avail  himself."  But  do  we  not 
know  that  there  is  nothing  more  deceptive  in  criticism  than  arguments 

1  The    author  of   the   Recognitions  quotes  the  expression  and  of  the  Spirit,  to  the  end 

thus:    "Amen  dico  vobis,  nisi   quia  denuo  of  glorifying  so  much  the  more  the  baptism 

renatus  fuerit  ex  aqua,  non  introibit  in  peg-  of  water,  in  conformity  with  the  ritual  tend- 

na  coelorum."     He  quotes,  combining    Mie  tucy  of  that  time. 
third  and  fifth  verses  of  John  ;  he  only  omits 


154  BOOK   III.      THE  OivlGIX. 

drawn  from  what  a  writer  should  have  said  or  done,  and  has  not  done  or 
said?  Abbot  cites  curious  examples  of  this  drawn  from  contemporary 
history.  We  have  already  recalled  to  mind  the  fact  that  the  Gospel  of 
Matthew  was,  in  the  earliest  times  of  the  Church,  the  source  which  was 
most  generally  used.  This  is  also  the  case  with  Justin,  who  uses  Luke 
much  less  frequently  than  Matthew,  and  Mark  much  less  even  than  Luke. 
John  is  used  more  than  Mark.1 

For  ourselves,  we  think  we  have  proved :  1.  That  the  fourth  Gospel 
existed  in  the  time  of  Justin  and  formed  a  part  of  his  apostolic  Memoirs  ; 
2.  That  it  was  publicly  read  in  the  churches  of  the  East  and  West  as  one 
of  the  authentic  documents  of  the  history  and  teachings  of  Jesus ;  3.  That, 
as  a  consequence,  it  possessed  already  at  that  period,  conjointly  with  the 
other  three,  a  very  ancient  notoriety  and  a  general  authority  equal  to 
that  of  the  Old  Testament.  Now  it  is  impossible  that  a  work  which  held 
this  position  in  the  Church  in  140,  should  have  been  composed  only  about 
the  year  130.2 

In  the  same  year  140,  when  Justin  came  to  settle  at  Eome,  there  also 
arrived  in  that  city  one  of  the  most  illustrious  representatives  of  the 
Gnostic  doctrines,  Valentinus.  After  having  carried  on  a  school  for  quite 
a  long  time  in  that  capital,  he  went  away  to  end  his  career  in  Cyprus, 
about  160.  We  already  know  some  of  his  principal  disciples,  Ptolemy, 
Heracleon,  Theodotus,  and  we  know  how  much  favor  the  fourth  Gospel 
had  in  their  schools ;  history  confirms  this  saying  of  Irenseus  respecting 
them  :  "  making  use,  in  the  most  complete  way,  of  the  Gospel  of  John." 
It  is,  therefore,  very  probable  that  their  master  had  given  them  an  exam- 
ple on  this  point.  Tertullian  sets  Valentinus  in  opposition  to  another 
Gnostic,  Marcion,  remarking  that  the  former  accepted  the  sacred  collec- 
tion as  a  whole,  not  making  up  the  Scriptures  according  to  his  doctrine, 
but  rather  adapting  his  doctrine  to  the  Scriptures.3  We  are  acquainted 
with  his  system ;  he  presented  as  emanating  successively  from  the  eternal 
and  divine  abyss  pairs  of  JEons  (principles  of  things),  of  which  the  first 
four  formed  what  he  called  the  Ogdoad  (the  sacred  eight).  The  names  of 
these  ^Eons  were :  Logos,  Light,  Truth,  Grace,  Life,  Only  begotten  Son,  Par- 

i  The  other  general  objections  which  are  for  example,  we  have  no  reason  to  occupy 

raised  by  A. Thoma  in.Hilgenfeld's Zeitkhrift  ourselves  with  it  here. 

(1875),  and  by  the  work  called  Supernatural  2To  Justin  is  sometimes  ascribed  the  Let- 
Religion,  are  refuted  by  Abbot  (pp.  Gl-76).  ter  to  Diognetus,  in  which  the  fourth  Gospel 
They  do  not  concern  us  here,  since  Thoma  has  left  its  deeply  marked  imprint.  In  our 
himself  admits  that  Justin  was  acquainted  view,  as  in  that  of  Reuss,  this  letter  must 
with  and  in  almost  every  chapter  used  "  the  date  approximative^  from  the  year  130.  But, 
Gospel  of  the  Logos ;"  he  only  claims  that  he  independently  of  those  who,  like  Overbeck, 
did  not  recognize  it  as  apostolic  and  truly  bring  it  down  to  the  fourth  century,  others 
historical.  This  is  of  little  importance  to  us,  place  it  only  under  Marcus  Aurelius,  in  the 
since  the  question  here  is  only  whether  the  second  half  of  the  century.  Comp.  Draeseke, 
Gospel  existed  in  Justin's  time  and  was  used  Jahrb.  far  protest.  Theol.,  2  Heft.,  1881.  Under 
by  him.— As  to  the  question  whether  the  few  these  condition's,  we  refrain  from  alleging 
facts  of  the  evangelical  history  cited  by  Jus-  the  passages  or  expressions  which  are  bor- 
tin,  which  are  not  found  in  our  Gospels,  are  rowed  from  John, 
borrowed  from  the  oral  tradition  or  from  8  De  praescr.  haeret,  ch.  38. 
some  lost  work,  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews 


THE  TIME — 130-155.  155 

aclete.  The  influence  of  John's  prologue  is  easily  recognized  here,  since 
all  these  names  are  found  united  together  in  that  passage,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  last,  which  appears  only  later  in  the  Gospel,  and  which  is  used 
in  the  epistle.  It  has  been  asked,  it  is  true,  whether  perhaps  it  may  not 
be  the  evangelist  who  composed  his  prologue  under  the  influence  of  the 
Valentinian  Gnosis,  and  Hilgenfeld  has  thought  that  his  aim  may  have 
been  to  cause  this  new  doctrine  to  penetrate  the  Church,  by  mitigating  it. 
We  have  already  seen  to  what  forced  interpretations  (of  John  viii.  44,  for 
example,  and  other  passages),  this  scholar  has  been  led  from  this  point  of 
view.  Let  us  add  that  the  terms  by  which  Valentinus  designates  his 
iEons  receive  in  his  system  an  artificial,  strained,  mythological  sense, 
while  in  the  prologue  of  John  they  are  taken  in  their  simple,  natural  and, 
moreover,  Biblical  meaning;  for  they,  all  of  them,  belong  already  to  the 
language  of  the  Old  Testament.  It  certainly  is  not  John  who  has  trans- 
formed the  divine  actors  of  the  Gnostic  drama  into  simple  religious  ideas  ; 
it  is  very  evidently  the  reverse  which  has  taken  place  :  "Everything  leads 
us  to  hold,"  says  Bleek,  "  that  the  Gnostics  made  use  of  these  expressions, 
which  they  drew  from  a  work  which  was  held  in  esteem,  as  points  of  sup- 
port for  their  speculative  system."  "John,"  says  Keim  in  the  same  line, 
11  knows  nothing  of  those  ./Eons,  of  that  Pleroma,  of  those  masculine  and 
feminine  pairs,  and  of  all  that  long  line  of  machinery  which  was  designed 
to  bring  God  into  the  finite ;  it  is  he,  therefore,  undoubtedly,  who  is  the 
earliest,  and  who,  as  Irena-us  indicates,  laid  the  foundation  of  the  edifice." 
Hilgenfeld  claims  that  the  Logos  of  John  is  only  a  concentration  of  the 
series  of  ^Eons  of  Valentinus.  Hase  replies  to  him,  that  we  can  maintain, 
and  with  as  good  right  at  least,  that  it  is  the  single  Logos  of  John  which 
was  divided  by  the  Gnostics  into  their  series  of  ^Eons.  In  the  Philoso-< 
phumena  (vi.  35),  Hippolytus  relates  of  Valentinus  the  following  :  "  He  says 
((j>r/ai)  that  all  the  prophets  and  the  law  spoke  according  to  the  Demiurge, 
the  senseless  god,  and  that  this  is  the  reason  why  the  Saviour  said  :  "All 
those  who  came  before  me  are  thieves  and  robbers."  This  is  an  express 
quotation  from  John  x.  8.  Criticism  replies  :  Perhaps  it  was  not  Valen- 
tinus himself  who  expressed  himself  thus,  but  one  of  his  successors.  Let 
us  admit  it,  notwithstanding  the  very  positive  words  He  says  of  Hippoly- 
tus. The  Ogdoad,  with  its  Johanncan  names,  which  form  the  basis  of  the 
whole  Valentinian  system,  remains  nevertheless ;  and  it  would  be  very 
strange  that  the  chief  of  the  school  should  not  have  been  the  one  who 
laid  the  foundation  of  the  system.  We  do  not  think,  therefore,  that  an 
impartial  criticism  can  deny  in  the  case  of  Valentinus  himself  the  use  of 
the  fourth  Gospel.1 
Two  years  before  Valentinus,  in  138,  Marcion  arrived  in  Rome  ;  he  came 

'The  following  is  what  Heinrici  says  in  ance  of  the  system.    The  use    which  the 

his  well-known   work,   Die     Valentinianische  Valentinians  made  of  the  Gospel  of  John  and 

Onosis  uixd  die  heiligc  Schrift :  "  The  Valentin-  the  Kpistles  to  the  Colossians  and  the  Ephe- 

ians  thus  used  the  Scripture  as  a  universally  sians  proves  that  these  writings  were  recog- 

recognized  authority;  it  possessed  this  an-  nized  and  used  as  apostolic  writings  already 

thority,  therefore,  previously  to  the  appear-  in  the  first  half  of  the  second  century,'1 


156  BOOK   III.      THE   ORIGIN. 

from  Pontus,  where  his  father  was  bishop,  and  where  he  had  been  brought 
up  in  the  Christian  beliefs.  Tertullian  makes  an  allusion  to  his  Christian 
past,  when  he  apostrophizes  him  thus  (De  came  Christi,  c.  2)  :  "  Thou  who, 
when  thou  wert  a  Christian,  didst  fall  away,  rejecting  that  which  thou 
hadst  formerly  believed,  as  thou  dost  acknowledge  in  a  certain  letter." 
To  what  did  this  rejection  (rcscindendo)  with  which  Tertullian  reproaches 
him,  and  which  had  attended  upon  his  spiritual  falling  away,  refer?  The 
answer  is  given  us  by  two  other  passages  from  the  same  Father.  In  the 
woi'k  specially  designed  to  refute  the  doctrines  of  Marcion,  Tertullian 
relates  (Adv.  Marc.  iv.  3),  that  Marcion,  "in  studying  the  Epistle  to  the 
Galatians,  discovered  that  Paul  charged  the  apostles  with  not  walking  in  the 
truth,  and  that  he  took  advantage  of  this  charge  to  destroy  the  confidence 
which  men  had  in  the  Gospels  published  under  the  name  of  the  apostles 
and  apostolic  men,  and  to  claim  belief  on  behalf  of  his  own  Gospel  Avhich 
he  substituted  for  these."  We  know,  indeed,  that  Marcion  had  selected 
by  preference  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  and  that,  after  having  mutilated  it  in 
order  to  adapt  it  to  his  system,  he  gave  it  to  his  churches  as  the  rule  of 
their  faith.  Now,  what  does  the  conclusion  which  he  drew  from  Galatians 
ii.  prove?  The  apostles  mentioned  in  that  chapter  are  Peter  and  John. 
If  Marcion  inferred  from  that  passage  the  rejection  of  their  Gospels,  it 
must  be  that  he  had  in  his  hands  a  Gospel  of  Peter — was  this  Mark  ? — and 
a  Gospel  of  John.  He  rejected  from  this  time  those  books  of  the  Canon 
which  had  been  handed  down  to  him  by  his  father,  the  bishop  of  Sinope. 
In  the  De  came  Christi,  chap.  3,  we  read  a  second  expression  which  leads 
to  the  same  result  as  the  preceding :  "  If  thou  hadst  not  rejected  the  writings 
which  are  contrary  to  thy  system,  the  Gospel  of  John  would  be  there  to 
convince  thee."  In  order  that  Marcion  should  reject  this  writing,  it 
certainly  must  have  been  in  existence,  and  Marcion  must  have  previously 
possessed  it.  And  let  us  notice,  that  he  rejected  it,  not  on  the  ground 
that  it  was  not  apostolic  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  that  it  was  so.  For  to  his 
thought  the  twelve  apostles,  imbued  with  Jewish  prejudices,  had  not 
understood  Jesus ;  so  their  Gospels  (Matthew,  Mark,  John)  must  be  set 
aside.  Paul  alone  had  understood  the  Master,  and  the  Gospel  of  Luke, 
his  companion,  must  alone  be  an  authority. — Volkmar  has  made  the 
author,  of  the  fourth  Gospel  a  partisan  of  Marcion,  who  sought  to  intro- 
duce his  doctrines  into  the  Church.  But  what  is  there  in  common  between 
the  violent  hatred  of  Marcion  against  the  Jewish  law  and  the  God  of  the 
Jews,  and  a  Gospel  in  which  the  Logos,  in  coming  to  Israel,  comes  to  His 
own,  and,  in  entering  into  the  temple  of  Jerusalem,  declares  that  He  is  in 
the  house  of  His  Father?  And  how  can  it  be  reasonably  maintained  that 
a  writer  whose  thought  strikes  all  its  roots  into  the  soil  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, is  the  disciple  of  a  master  who  rejected  from  the  New  everything 
that  implied  the  divinity  of  the  Old?  In  saying  this,  we  have  answered 
the  question  of  the  same  author,  who  asks  why,  if  John  existed  before 
Marcion,  the  latter  did  not  choose  to  make  his  Gospel  rather  than 
Luke  the  Gospel  of  his  sect.  The  ancient  heretic  was  more  clear-sighted 
than  the  modern  critic ;  he  understood  that,  in  order  to  use  John,  he  must 


THE  TIME — 110-125.  157 

mutilate  it,  in  some  sort,  from  one  end  to  the  other,  and  he  preferred  to 
reject  it  at  one  stroke  rescindendo,  as  Tertullian  says. 

At  the  same  period  in  which  Justin,  Valentinus  and  Marcion  met  each 
other  in  Rome,  a  fanatical  sect  arose  in  Asia  Minor,  Muntanism.  Its 
leader  wished  to  make  a  reaction  against  the  laxness  of  Christendom  and 
the  mechanical  course  of  the  oilicial  clergy.  Montanus  announced  the 
near  coming  of  the  Christ,  and  pretended  to  cause  the  descent  upon  the 
Church  of  the  Spirit  who  was  promised  for  the  last  days,  and  whom  he 
called  the  Paraclete,  evidently  in  accordance  with  the  promise  of  Jesus  in 
John  xiv.  16,  26,  etc.  He  even  identified  himself  with  this  Spirit,  if  it  is 
true,  as  Theodoret  affirms,  that  he  gave  himself  the  titles  of  Paraclete, 
Logos,  Bridegroom.  But  it  is  not  only  these  expressions,  borrowed  from 
John,  it  is  the  whole  spiritualistic  movement,  it  is  that  energetic  reaction 
against  the  more  and  more  prevailing  ritualism,  which  implies  the  exist- 
ence in  the  Church  of  a  writing  which  was  an  authority,  and  was  capable 
of  serving  as  a  point  of  support  for  so  energetic  a  movement. 

Thus,  then,  in  140,  Justin,  the  martyr  belonging  to  the  orthodox  Church, 
Valentinus,  the  Egyptian  Gnostic,  Marcion,  who  came  from  Pontus,  Mon- 
tanus, in  Phrygia,  are  acquainted  with  and,  excepting  Marcion,  use  with 
one  consent,  the  Gospel  of  John,  in  order  to  found  upon  it  their  doctrine 
and  their  churches  ;  would  all  this  be  possible,  if  that  work  had  only  been 
in  existence  for  a  decade  of  years?  The  date  130-140  falls  before  these 
facts,  just  as  the  date  160-170  vanished  in  presence  of  those  which  were 
previously  alleged. 

Let  us  come  to  the  third  position  attempted  by  criticism  in  our  days. 

110-125. 
(Reuss,  Nicolas,  Rt  nan,  Sabatier,  Weizsacker,  Hase.) 

History  offers  us  here  four  points  for  our  guidance  :  The  Gnostic  Basil- 
ides,  and  the  three  apostolic  Fathers,  Papias,  Polycarp,  and  Ignatius. 
Finally,  we  shall  interrogate  the  appendix  of  our  Gospel,  chap,  xxi.,  which, 
while  connected  with  the  work,  does  not  properly  form  a  part  of  it. 

Basilides  flourished  at  Alexandria  about  120-125;  he  died  a  little  after 
132.  Before  teaching  in  Egypt,  he  is  said  to  have  labored  in  Persia  and 
Syria.  In  the  work  Archelal  et  Manetis  disputatio,  it  is  said :  "A  certain 
Basilides,  more  anciently  still,  was  a  preacher  among  the  Persians  a  little 
after  the  time  of  the  apostles."  According  to  Epiphanius  (Haer.  xxiii.  1-7; 
xxiv.  1),  he  had  also  labored  at  Antioch.  His  activity,  consequently,  goes 
back  as  far  as  the  earliest  period  of  the  second  century.  He  himself 
claimed  that  he  taught  only  what  had  been  taught  him  by  the  Apostle 
Matthias  according  to  the  secret  instructions  which  he  had  received  from 
the  Lord.  That  this  assertion  should  have  any  shadow  of  probability,  it 
is  certainly  necessary  that  he  should  have  been  able  to  meet  with  that 
apostle  somewhere ;  a  fact  which  carries  us  back  for  the  period  of  his  birth 
to  a  quite  early  time  in  the  first  century.1 

xSee  Hofatede  de  Groot,  Basilides  und  seine  Zcit. 


158  BOOK   III.      THE  ORIGIN. 

In  a  homily  on  Luke,  attributed  to  Origen,  it  is  said  that  "  Basilides  had 
the  boldness  already  to  write  a  gospel  according  to  Basilides."  l  The  word 
already  proves  that  Basilides  was  regarded  as  belonging  to  the  earliest 
times  of  Gnosticism.  As  to  the  expression  :  a  gospel  according  to  Basilides, 
it  is  very  doubtful  whether  it  is  necessary  to  understand  thereby  an  evan- 
gelical narrative  designed  to  come  into  competition  with  our  Gospels.  By 
this  term,  indeed,  Basilides  himself  understood,  not  a  simple  narration,  but 
"  the  knowledge  of  supersensible  things  "  (f/  tuv  vTrepKoa/xiuv  yvuoig)  {Philos. 
of  Hippolytus,  vii.  27).  We  are  told,  also,  that  his  narrative  of  the  birth 
of  Jesus  accorded  entirely  with  that  of  our  Gospels  (Philos.,  ibid.),  and 
history  does  not  present  the  least  trace  of  an  apocryphal  Basilidian  gos- 
pel. But  we  know  from  Eusebius  (H.  E.  iv.  7.  7),  that  this  Gnostic  wrote 
twenty-four  books  on  the  Gospel  (rig  to  evayyiTaov),  which  were  refuted  in  a 
striking  way  by  a  Christian  writer,  named  Agrippa  Castor,  whose  work 
was  still  in  the  hands  of  Eusebius.*  '  The  real  nature  of  this  work  of  Basil- 
ides appears  from  a  quotation  which  Clement  of  Alexandria  makes  from 
it  in  the  Stromata  (Bk.  iv.),  where  he  expresses  himself  thus  :  "  Basilides 
says  in  the  twenty-third  book  of  his  exegetical  dissertations.  .  .  .  "3  It  was, 
therefore,  a  work  of  explanations;  but  on  what  text?  The  answer 
appears  first,  from  the  expression  of  Eusebius :  "twenty-four  books  on  (elg) 
the  Gospel,"  and  second,  from  the  passage  from  the  Philosophumena  (vii. 
22),  according  to  which  Basilides  is  said  to  have  expressed  himself  as  fol- 
lows :  "  Here  is  what  is  said  in  the  Gospels  (to  leydfievov  iv  rolg  hayyeXioig)." 
From  all  this  we  conclude  that  this  Gnostic  set  forth  his  theory  respecting 
the  origin  of  things  in  the  form  of  exegetical  explanations,  having  refer- 
ence to  the  text  of  the  Gospels  which  were  received  at  his  time  in  the 
churches.  But  the  question  for  us  to  determine  is  whether  he  also 
worked  upon  the  fourth  Gospel.  Now,  we  have  two  passages  which  seem 
to  leave  no  doubt  on  this  point ;  one  is  that  we  have  just  mentioned 
(Philos.  vii.  22) :  "Here,  says  he  [Basilides],  is  what  is  said  in  the  Gospels: 
It  was  the  true  light  which  lighteneth  every  man  coming  into  the  world  ; " 
the  other,  a  little  further  on,  eh.  27 :  "  Let  everything  have  its  own  appro- 
priate time,  says  he  [Basilides],  is  what  the  Saviour  sufficiently  declares 
when  he  says  :  My  hour  is  not  yet  come." — These  two  quotations  are  evi- 
dently connected  with  John  i.  8  and  ii.  4. 

The  criticism  which  is  opposed  to  the  authenticity  of  our  Gospel  is 
obliged  to  make  all  efforts  to  escape  the  consequences  of  these  Johannean 
quotations  in  Basilides  ;  for  they  amount  to  nothing  less  than  the  carry- 
ing back  of  the  composition  of  the  fourth  Gospel  even  into  the  first  cen- 
tury. In  fact,  men  only  quote  in  this  way  a  book  which  has  already  a 
recognized  authority.  It  has  been  claimed,  therefore,  that,  in  mentioning 
these  quotations  from  Basilides,  Hippolytus  did  not  distinguish  the  writ- 
ings of  the  master  from  those  of  his  later  disciples.  The  term  he  says,  it 
is  claimed,  related  simply  in  his  thought  to  the  adversary,  whoever  he 

1  Ambrose  and  Jerome  have  repeated  this        by  Agrippa  Castor,"  etc. 
statement.  •  s'Ev  rui  tinotTTi?  rpirta  riav  e£i)yr)TiK<Ji'. 

8  "  There  lias  come  down  even  to  us  a  work 


THE   TIME — 110-125.  159 

was,  Basil  ides  or  the  Basilidians,  Valentinus  or  the  Valentinians ;  and  in 
favor  of  this  supposition,  the  alleged  fact  has  been  adduced,  that  Hippo- 
lytus  sets  forth  the  Basilidian  system  in  a  later  form  than  that  in  which 
Irenreus  still  knew  it.  According  to  the  latter,  indeed,  the  system  was 
dualistic  ;  this  was  the  earliest  form  ;  according  to  Hippolytus,  on  the  con- 
trary, it  is  rather  pantheistic  ;  there  is  here,  therefore,  a  more  recent  form. 
Discussion  can  be  carried  on  at  great  length  respecting  this  dilference. 
For  ourselves,  we  are  disposed  to  accept  the  explanation  given  by  Char- 
teris  {Canonicity,  p.  lxiii.),  according  to  which  Irenams  did  not,  in  his 
exposition  of  the  system,  go  back  to  its  first  foundations.  There  was  a 
hidden  pantheism  at  the  source  of  its  apparent  dualism,  and  Hippolytus 
who  had  examined  even  the  writings  of  the  master  has,  more  completely 
than  Irenaeus,  apprehended  and  set  forth  the  original  principles.  How- 
ever it  may  be  with  this  explanation,  it  does  not  seem  to  us  possible  that  a 
serious  writer  quotes  a  whole  series  of  texts  which  he  attributes  to  an  ear- 
lier writer,  repeating  over  and  over  again  the  formula  he  says,  and  even 
several  times  indicating  the  author  by  his  name,  without  having  his  work 
under  his  eyes.  Renan  says,  quite  simply  and  frankly  (L'Eglise  chre- 
tienne,  p.  158) :  "  The  author  of  the  Philosophumena  undoubtedly  made  this 
analysis  with  reference  to  the  original  works  of  Basilides."  And  Weiz- 
siicker,  a  few  years  ago,  expressed  himself  also  in  the  same  way  (Unters. 
p.  233) :  "  It  cannot  be  doubted  that  we  have  here  quotations  from  a  work  of 
Basilides,  in  which  the  Johannean  Gospel  was  used."  At  the  present 
time,  he  has  changed  his  opinion.1  For  what  reason  ?  Because  these 
quotations  ascribed  to  Basilides  relate  to  Biblical  writings  whose  composi- 
tion is  later  than  the  time  of  Basilides  himself.  And  what  are  these 
writings  ?  They  can  only  be  the  Epistles  to  the  Colossians  and  the  Ephe- 
sians,  quoted  many  times  by  this  Gnostic  in  the  extracts  from  the  Philo- 
sophumena, and  perhaps  the  Gospel  of  John  itself.  Is  it  needful  to  call 
the  attention  of  this  scholar  to  the  fact  that  he  falls  here  into  a  vicious 
circle  ?  For  he  rests  his  views  precisely  upon  the  point  which  is  in  ques- 
tion. If  Weizsiicker  reasons  thus  :  The  Basilides  of  Hippolytus  quotes 
the  letters  to  the  Ephcsians  and  the  Colossians;  therefore  there  is  here  a 
false  Basilides,  since  those  letters  did  not  yet  exist  at  the  time  of  the  true 
Basilides  ;  have  not  we  the  right — we  who  believe  in  the  authenticity  of 
those  epistles — to  reason  in  an  opposite  way,  and  to  say :  Basilides  quotes 
those  writings  :  therefore  in  his  time  they  existed  and  were  acknowledged 
in  the  Church.  This  conclusion,  valid  for  Colossians  and  Ephesians,  is 
also  valid  for  the  Gospel  of  John. 

Keim  has  also  made  a  discovery  which  is  said  to  prove  that  our  Gospel 
is  posterior  to  Basilides.  This  Gnostic  writer  asserted  that  the  Jews  by 
mistake  had  crucified  Simon  of  Cyrene  instead  of  Jesus,  and  that  Jesus 
was  all  the  time  laughing  at  them.  Here,  says  the  author  of  the  Life  of 
Jesus,  is  that  which  explains  the  omission  of  the  story  of  Simon  bearing 
the  cross  in  the  fourth  Gospel.     Pseudo-John  had  noticed  the  abuse  which 

i  Jahrb.  fur  deutsche  TlicoL,  1S68,  p.  526. 


160  BOOK   III.      THE   ORIGIN. 

Basilides  made  of  this  incident,  and  for  this  reason  he  suppressed  it.  We 
need  not  long  discuss  such  an  argument.  We  have  treated  in  detail  John's 
omissions  and  have  shown  that  they  are  to  be  explained  simply  by  the 
uselessness  of  such  repetitions.  To  what  purpose  relate  again  what  two 
or  three  widely-spread  writings  had  already  sufficiently  related  ?  It  would 
be  curious,  certainly,  to  see  one  of  our  critics  taking  upon  himself  the 
task  of  explaining,  by  allusions  to  the  Gnostic  systems,  all  the  gaps  in  the 
fourth  Gospel ! 

Papias  was  a  contemporary  of  Basilides.  We  have  already  seen  (p.  43) 
that  by  this  expression :  "  What  Aristion  and  John  the  Presbyter  say,"  he 
indicates  clearly  that  these  two  men,  immediate  disciples  of  Jesus,  were 
still  living  at  the  moment  when  he  wrote.  The  years  110-120,  are,  there- 
fore, the  latest  period  to  which  we  can  assign  the  composition  of  his  work. 
Already  at  that  time,  there  was  rising  a  whole  literature  which  labored  to 
falsify  the  meaning  of  the  Gospel  narratives.  Papias  also  declares  that 
"  he  does  not  take  pleasure  in  the  books  in  which  many  things  are  related, 
and  in  which  the  attempt  is  made  to  impose  on  the  Church  precepts  that 
are  strange  and  different  from  those  which  were  given  by  the  Truth  itself."  l 
It  seems  to  me  probable  that  in  expressing  himself  thus  he  alludes  to  the 
first  appearance  of  the  Gnostic  writings,  such  as  those  of  Cerinthus,  of  the 
Ophites  and  the  Sethians,  of  Saturninus,  perhaps  of  Basilides  himself. 

It  is  quite  generally  affirmed  in  our  days  that  all  trace  of  the  fourth 
Gospel  is  wanting  in  Papias,  and  this  fact  is  regarded  as  the  most  decisive 
proof  of  the  later  composition  of  the  Gospel  of  John.  We  pray  the  im- 
partial reader  carefully  to  consider  the  following  facts : 

Of  Papias'  work  entitled  Explanations  of  the  Words  of  the  Lord  (in  five 
books),  there  remain  to  us  only  some  thirty  lines,  which  Eusebius  has 
preserved  for  us ;  they  undoubtedly  belonged  to  the  preface.  Papias  ex- 
plains therein  the  preference  which  he  had  thought  himself  obliged  to 
give,  for  the  end  which  he  proposed  to  himself,  to  the  text  of  Matthew 
over  that  of  Mark  ;  this,  at  least,  is  the  meaning  which  we  attribute  to  his 
words.  He  gives  an  account  of  the  sources  from  which  he  had  drawn  the 
anecdotes  respecting  the  life  of  Jesus,  which  were  not  contained  in  our 
Gospels,  and  by  means  of  which  he  tried  to  explain  His  sayings.  These 
sources,  as  we  have  seen,  were  of  two  sorts :  they  were  first  the  accounts 
which  the  elders  (the  immediate  disciples  of  the  Lord)  had  formerly  given 
to  him  himself;  they  were,  next,  the  reports  which  he  had  gathered  from 
the  mouth  of  visitors  who  had  also  had  the  advantage  of  conversing  with 
apostles  and  disciples  of  Jesus.  He  asked  them  "  What  Andrew  had  said  to 
them,  or  Peter,  or  Philip,  or  Thomas,  or  James,  or  John,  or  Matthew,  or 
any  other  of  the  Lord's  disciples,  and  what  Aristion  and  the  Presbyter 
John,  disciples  of  the  Lord,  say."  This  enumeration  offers  food  for 
thought.  Why  is  Andrew  named  at  the  beginning  and  before  Peter  him- 
self? This  order  is  contrary  to  the  constant  and  in  some  sort  stereotyped 
usage  of  the  Synoptics ;  see  all  the  apostolic  catalogues  (Matt.  x. ;  Mark 

1  See  the  entire  passage,  pp.  43-45. 


THE   TIME— 110-125.  161 

iii. ;  Luke  vi.).  The  first  chapter  of  John  alone  gives  the  answer  to  this 
question:  Andrew  (with  John  himself,  who  remains  unnamed),  was  the 
first  who  came  into  the  presence  of  the  Saviour;  he  figures  as  the  first 
personage  in  the  evangelic  history.  After  Andrew,  Papias  says :  Peter. 
According  to  John  i.,  Andrew,  his  brother,  brought  him,  indeed,  on  the 
same  day  to  Jesus.  Then  Papias  says:  Philip;  he  is  precisely  the  one 
who  immediately  follows  Andrew  and  Peter  in  the  Johannean  narrative 
(i.  43  ff.).  Moreover,  Andrew  and  Philip  are  the  two  apostles  who  are 
afterwards  most  frequently  named  in  our  Gospel  (vi.  5-9;  xii.  20-22) 
Then  comes  Thomas.  Nathanael  is  here  omitted  (John  i.  46  ff.),  we  know 
not  why;  he  is  included  in  the  sort  of  et  cetera  with  which  the  incomplete 
list  closes  :  "  or  any  other  of  the  Lord's  disciples."  As  for  Thomas,  he  is 
the  one  among  all  the  rest  of  the  disciples  who,  together  with  the  pre- 
ceding ones,  plays  the  most  striking  part  in  the  fourth  Gospel  (xi.  16;  xiv. 
5;  xx.  24  ff.).  Afterwards,  come  James  and  John.  Why  so  late,  these  who 
are  always  named  in  the  Synoptics  immediately  after  and  with  Peter? 
It  is  in  the  fourth  Gospel  also,  that  we  must  seek  the  explanation  of  this 
phenomenon.  The  two  sons  of  Zebedee  are  not  once  named  in  the  whole 
course  of  the  narrative ;  they  are  not  expressly  designated,  except  in  the 
appendix,  xxi.,  where  their  names  are  found,  as  here,  at  the  end  of  the 
list  of  the  apostles  who  are  mentioned  in  that  passage.  Among  all  the 
other  apostles,  Matthew  only  is  further  named  by  Papias ;  and  it  has  been 
supposed,  rightly  no  doubt,  that  it  is  the  mention  of  the  fourth  evangelist 
which  here  leads  to  the  mention  of  the  first.  It  may  be  presumed  also 
that  these  three  names :  James,  John  and  Matthew,  occupy  this  secondary 
position  because  the  question  in  this  passage  was  of  the  apostles  as  having 
furnished  to  Papias  the  oral  traditions  which  he  used.  Now  James  had 
died  too  early  to  be  able  to  give  much  information,  and  John  and  Mat- 
thew had  consigned  the  greater  part  of  theirs  to  their  writings.  Finally, 
Papias  names  two  personages  who  were  still  living,  Arisiion  and  the  Pres- 
byter John,  whom  he  calls  "disciples  of  the  Lord."  It  is  exactly  in  the 
same  way  that  the  Johannean  enumeration  xxi.  2,  closes :  "  And  two  others 
of  his  disciples  "  [not  apostles].  If  we  add  to  these  similarities,  which  are 
so  striking,  the  fact  that  all  these  disciples  named  by  Papias  (except  Peter, 
James  and  John),  play  no  part  whatever  in  the  Synoptical  narrative,  we 
shall  be  led  to  acknowledge  that  the  idea  which  this  Father  possessed  of 
the  evangelical  history  was  formed  on  the  foundation  of  the  narrative  of 
the  fourth  Gospel,  even  more  than  on  that  of  the  three  others.  Li'ule- 
niann,  in  his  articles  on  the  fragment  of  Papias,1  does  not  call  in  question 
the  similarity  which  we  have  just  established.  "  It  is  a  fact,"  he  says, 
"that  the  fragment  of  Papias  is  closely  related  to  the  Johannean  manner 
of  speaking,  both  in  the  expressions  hroXai,  commandments,  and  a?.?}0eia, 
truth  (see  the  fragment,  pp.  43-45),  and  in  the  beginning  of  the  list  of  the 
apostolic  names  .  .  .  The  unexpected  coming  in  of  Thomas,  in  Papias, 
likewise  does  not  allow  us  to  think  of  anything  but  the  fourth  Gospel." 

»  Jahrb.  fur  protest.  Theol.,  1879,  3d  Heft. 
11 


2 


162  BOOK   III.      THE   ORIGIN.  » 

But  after  this  frank  declaration  come  the  expedients  which  are  never  want- 
ing. "  There  existed  in  the  circle  from  which  the  Johannean  writings  came 
forth  in  Asia  a  mode  of  speaking  and  thinking,  which,  on  the  one  hand,  has 
left  certain  elements  in  the  writings  of  Papias  (between  120-140),  and  which, 
on  the  other,  has  found  its  full  blossoming  in  the  writings  of  pseudo-John, 
composed  at  nearly  the  same  time."  This  explanation  would  be  strictly  ad- 
missible, if  the  question  were  of  some  fact  of  the  evangelical  history  related 
simultaneously  by  the  two  authors,  or  of  the  use  of  some  common  terms  such 
as  commandment  and  truth.  But  it  cannot  account  for  an  enumeration  of 
proper  names,  such  as  those  mentioned  in  the  passage  of  Papias  and  in 
which  the  whole  evangelical  history  is  reflected.  Holtzmann  has  perceived 
the  injury  to  his  cause  which  was  involved  in  the  admissions  of  his  col- 
league ;  he  has  attempted  to  ward  off  the  blow  in  another  way.1  He  explains 
the  order  of  the  apostles  in  the  fragment  of  Papias  by  the  geographical  situ- 
ation of  the  countries  in  which  they  are  thought  to  have  labored  as  mis- 
sionaries.   This  solution  will  remain  the  exclusive  property  of  its  author. 

Two  facts  seem  to  us  further  to  attest  the  existence  of  the  fourth  Gos- 
pel before  the  time  of  Papias.  Eusebius  attests  that  this  Father  quoted 
as  evidence,  in  his  work,  passages  from  the  first  Epistle  of  John,  as  well  as 
from  the  first  Epistle  of  Peter.  Now  we  have  proved  that  that  letter  of 
John  is  by  the  same  author  as  the  fourth  Gospel,  and  that  it  was  composed 
after  the  latter.  If,  then,  Papias  was  acquainted  with  and  used  the  Epis- 
tle, how  should  he  not  have  been  acquainted  with  and  have  used  the  Gos- 
pel composed  by  the  same  author? — In  the  Vatican  library  there  is  found 
a  Latin  manuscript  of  the  Gospels,  of  the  ninth  century,  in  which  John's 
Gospel  is  preceded  by  a  preface  wherein  it  is  said  :  "The  Gospel  of  John 
was  published  and  given  to  the  churches  by  John  while  he  was  still  living, 
as  Papias  of  Hierapolis,  the  beloved  disciple  of  John,  relates  in  his  five 
exoteric  books,  that  is  to  say,  the  last  ones."  These  last  words  evidently 
come  from  an  incorrect  copy,  like  so  many  of  the  sentences  in  the  Mura- 
torian  fragment.  Instead  of  exoteric,  we  must,  at  all  events,  read  exegetic  ; 
comp.  the  title  of  Papias'  book  :  "  Expositions  (t^/yr/aeig)  of  the  words  of 
the  Lord."  Besides,  this  statement  is  followed  by  some  legendary  details,* 
which,  however,  are  not  ascribed  to  Papias  himself.  Notwithstanding  all 
this,  the  fact  that  Papias  spoke  in  his  five  books  of  the  Gospel  of  John  is 
yet  attested  by  this  passage.3 

Irenseus  sometimes  quotes  the  elders  who  lived  with  John  in  Asia  Minor 
until  the  time  of  Trajan.  They  were,  thus,  contemporaries  of  Papias 
and  Polycarp.  Here  is  an  explanation  which  he  ascribes  to  them  (v.  36) : 
"  As  the  elders  say  :  Those  who  shall  be  judged  worthy  of  enjoying  the 
heavenly  abode  will  find  their  place  there,  while  the  rest  will  inhabit  the 
city  [the  earthly  Jerusalem]  ;  and  it  is  for  this  reason  that  the  Lord  said  :* 

1  Papias  und  Johannes,  in  the  Zeitschrift fur  Epangelien  vcrfasst?    pp.  118, 119. 
wissenckaftl.  TheoL,  1S80,  Heft  1.  4  Literally:  "And  for  this  reason  the  Lord 

'As  the  following  for  example:  that  it  was  Pa-  to  have  said  (tipijiceVai).'-   The  infinitive  serves 

plas  who  wrote  the  Gospel  at  John's  dictation.  to  indicate  vhat  here  is  the  saying  of  the 

» Comp.  Tischendorf,  Wann  wurden  wuere  elders  themselves. 


THE  TIME— 110-125.  163 

"In  my  Father's  house  there  are  many  mansions."  If  it  is  the  saying  of 
Jesus  related  in  John  xiv.  2,  which  the  elders  interpreted  in  this  way,  as 
seems  evident,  then  the  Gospel  of  John  was  already  in  their  hands.  This 
appears,  likewise,  from  the  passage  in  Irenseus,  ii.  22,  where  he  attributes 
to  them  the  idea  that  Jesus  had  attained  the  age  of  forty  or  fifty  years — 
which  can  scarcely  have  arisen  except  through  a  misunderstanding  of  the 
words  of  the  Jews,  John  viii.  57  :  "  Thou  art  not  yet  fifty  years  old,  and 
thou  hast  seen  Abraham  !  " 

Polycarp  wrote,  according  to  Irenseus,  a  very  large  number  of  letters,  of 
which  there  remains  to  us  but  a  single  one  consisting  of  only  thirteen 
brief  chapters.  The  fourth  Gospel  is  not  quoted  in  it ;  but  we  can  prove, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  truth  of  the  statement  of  Eusebius,  who  declares 
that  Polycarp,  as  well  as  Papias,  borrowed  testimonies  from  the  first  Epis- 
tle of  Peter  and  the  first  Epistle  of  John  ;  this  is  what  induced  him  to 
place  these  works  among  the  homologoumena.  In  fact,  we  read  in  Poly- 
carp's  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  (chap.  7)  these  words  :  "  Whosoever  does 
not  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh,  is  an  antichrist."  This 
is  the  principle  laid  down  by  John,  1  Ep.  iv.  3 :  "  Every  spirit  that  con- 
fesseth  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh,  is  not  of  God ;  and  this 
is  the  spirit  of  antichrist."  The  coincidence  of  these  two  sentences  can- 
not be  accidental.  The  expedient  devised  by  Baur  and  Zeller,  who  would 
find  herein  only  a  maxim  circulating  at  this  period  in  the  Church,  and  that 
of  Volkmar,  who  claims  that  it  is  John  who  copies  Polycarp,  and  not  the 
reverse,  are  destitute  of  probability.  Ten  lines  of  John  read  by  the  side  of 
ten  lines  of  Polycarp  show  on  which  side  are  the  originality  and  priority. 
We  must,  therefore,  conclude  that  if  this  letter  of  Polycarp  is  authentic, 
as  Zahn l  has  with  so  much  learning  demonstrated,  and  if  it  dates,  as 
appears  from  its  contents,  from  the  time  which  closely  followed  the  martyr- 
dom of  Ignatius  (in  110),  the  first  Epistle  of  John,  and  consequently  the 
Gospel,  already  existed  at  that  period. 

But  it  is  asked  how  it  happens,  in  that  case,  that  Papias  and  Polycarp 
did  not  make  more  abundant  use  of  such  a  work.  Especially  is  the 
silence  of  Eusebius  respecting  any  citation  whatever  from  our  Gospel,  on 
the  part  of  these  two  Fathers,  set  in  contrast  with  the  very  express  men- 
tion which  he  makes  of  the  use  of  the  first  epistle,  by  both  of  them. — If 
Eusebius  has  expressly  noticed  this  last  fact,  it  is  because  the  two  epis- 
tles of  Peter  and  John  form  a  part  of  the  collection  of  the  Catholic  Epis- 
tles, which,  with  the  exception  of  these  two,  were  all  of  them  disputed 
writings.  He  was  desirous,  therefore,  of  marking  their  exceptional  char- 
acter as  homologoumena  in  this  collection,  a  character  appearing  from  the 
use  which  was  made  of  them  by  two  such  men  as  Papias  and  Polycarp. 
It  was  quite  otherwise  with  the  Gospel,  Avhich  indisputably  belonged  to 
the  class  of  books  universally  received.  The  use  which  these  two  apos- 
tolic Fathers  might  have  made  of  it  entered  into  the  general  usage.  Eu- 
sebius himself  gives  an  explanation  respecting  his  general  method  (H.  E. 
iii.  3,  3) :  "  He  wishes,"  he  says,  "  to  point  out  what  ecclesiastical  writings 

1  In  his  Ignatius  von  Antiochien. 


164  BOOK   III.      THE  ORIGIN. 

made  use  of  disputed  books,  and  what  ones  among  these  books  they  made 
use  of;  then,  what  things,  [or  some  of  the  things  which]  l  have  been  said 
respecting  the  universally  received  writings  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
everything  which  has  been  said  (baa)  respecting  those  which  are  not  so 
received."  To  mention  certain  interesting  details  respecting  the  Homo- 
logoumena  (as  we  know  that  he  has  done  with  regard  to  Matthew  and 
Mark),  then  to  report  everything  which  he  could  gather  respecting  the 
Antilegomena — this  was  the- end  which  he  proposed  to  himself.  It  was 
therefore  precisely  because  he,  together  with  the  whole  Church,  ranked 
John  in  the  first  class,  that  he  did  not  think  himself  obliged  expressly  to 
point  out  the  use  which  these  Fathers  made  of  this  gospel.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  if  he  had  discovered,  in  the  case  of  such  men,  a  complete 
blank  with  respect  to  this  work,  he  could  not  have  affirmed,  as  he  does, 
its  universal  adoption.  Stdl  more  :  a  word  in  the  discussion  of  Eusebius 
respecting  the  fragment  of  Papias  which  he  has  preserved  for  us,  clearly 
shows  that  he  had  found  in  that  Father  numerous  passages  relating  to  the 
fourth  Gospel.  On  occasion  of  the  mention  of  the  name  of  John  in  the 
enumeration  of  the  apostles  by  Papias,  he  remarks  that  this  Father  means 
evidently  to  designate  thereby  "  the  evangelist "  (aatyox;  StjIuv  tov  Evayyelia- 
ttjv).  He  might  have  said  :  the  apostle,  but  he  enters  into  the  thought  of 
Papias  himself,  and  says :  the  evangelist,  which  clearly  proves  that  he  found 
in  his  work  the  constant  evidence  of  the  fact  that  John  was  the  author  of 
a  Gospel.  As  to  Polycarp,  nothing  obliged  him,  in  precisely  those  eight 
pages  of  his  which  remain  to  us,  to  quote  the  Gospel  of  John.  What 
preacher  quotes  in  every  one  of  his  sermons  all  the  writings  of  the  New 
Testament  which  he  recognizes  as  authentic  ? 

The  interminable  discussions  are  well  known,  to  which  the  letters  of 
Ignatius,  the  bishop  of  Antioch  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  century, 
have  given  rise.  A  nearly  unanimous  tradition,  supported  by  the  testi- 
mony of  authors  who  wrote  at  Antioch  itself,  such  as  Chrysostom  and 
Evagrius,  declares  that  he  perished  at  Rome,  being  devoured  by  wild 
beasts  in  the  circus,  in  consequence  of  a  sentence  of  the  Emperor  Tra- 
jan.2 It  was  while  on  his  way  as  a  condemned  person  to  that  capital 
(between  107  and  116),  that  he  is  said  to  have  written  the  seven  letters 
which  alone  can  claim  authenticity.3  These  letters  exist  in  a  double  form, 
one  longer,  the  other  more  simple  and  concise.  Zahn,  in  his  book  on 
Ignatius  of  Antioch,  has  clearly  proved  that  the  first  of  these  two  texts  is 
the  result  of  a  deliberate  work  of  interpolation  ;  he  has  even  very  prob- 
ably pointed  out  the  author  of  this  fraud.*    He  has,  at  the  same  time, 

1  Both  translations  are  possible,  according  as  Antioch  itself  have  so  easily  resigned  in  favor 

we  accent  the  Greek    pronoun   riva.    (what  of  Rome  the  honor  of  having  seen  such  a 

things),  or  rivd  (some  of  the  things).  martyrdom  accomplished  in  its  own  midst? 

-  The  chronicler  John  Malalas  (8th  cent.)  3  Eight  others  exist  which  are  undoubtedly 

places  the  martyrdom  of  Ignatius  at  Antioch  forgeries. 

itself.  In  that  case,  Ignatius  could  never  have  4  One  of  the  least  honorable  representatives 

made  the  journey  to  Rome  to  which  these  of  the  semi-Arian  party.  Acacius,  the  succes- 

letters  refer.    But  how  then  can  we  explain  sor  of  Eusebius  at  Cesarea. 
so  general  a  tradition  ?  Would  the  Church  of 


THE  TIME — 110-125.  165 

demonstrated  the  authenticity  of  the  seven  letters,  as  they  have  been  pre- 
served for  us  in  the  briefer  form.  The  historian  Eusebius,  already  was 
acquainted  only  with  tbese  seven,  and  in  this  text.  It  is  true  that  there 
have  been  recently  discovered  three  among  these  seven,  in  Syriac,  in 
a  still  briefer  form ; *  and,  at  the  first  moment,  the  learned  world  was 
inclined  to  regard  this  text  as  the  only  faithful  reproduction  of  the 
work  of  Ignatius.  Zahn  seems  to  us  to  have  victoriously  combated 
this  opinion,  and  to  have  proved  that  this  text  is  only  an  extract,  made 
by  some  Syrian  monk,  from  a  more  ancient  translation  in  that  language. 
There  remains  but  one  alternative ;  the  authenticity  of  the  seven  letters, 
as  Eusebius  knew  them,  or  their  entire  unauthenticity. — Two  reasons 
especially  are  alleged  in  favor  of  this  last  opinion  :  1.  The  Episcopal  con- 
stitution, as  it  appears  in  these  letters,  belongs,  it  is  said,  to  an  epoch  much 
later  in  the  second  century  than  the  time  of  Ignatius  ;  2.  The  Gnosticism 
which  is  combated  in  them,  betrays  likewise  a  time  posterior  to  Ignatius' 
death.  These  reasons  do  not  seem  to  us  decisive.  The  Episcopate,  as  its 
character  is  implied  in  these  letters,  is  still  a  purely  parochial  ministry,  as 
in  the  apostolic  times,  it  is  not  the  later  provincial  Episcopate.  That 
which  alone  distinguishes  it  from  the  ministry  of  this  name  in  the  time 
of  the  apostles,  is  that  it  appears  to  be  concentrated  in  a  single  person. 
But  this  is  already  the  case  in  the  Apocalypse,  where  the  angel  of  the 
Church  designates  precisely  the  man  who  concentrates  in  himself  the 
presbyterial  power ;  and  indeed  long  before  this  we  meet  already  men 
like  James,  the  Lord's  brother,  at  Jerusalem,  then  his  cousin  and  suc- 
cessor, Simeon,  Anianus  at  Alexandria,  Evagrius  at  Antioch,  Linus  at 
Rome,  who  occupy  a  position  exactly  similar  to  that  which  Ignatius 
ascribes  to  the  bishop  of  his  time.  As  to  the  heresy  implied  in  these  let- 
ters, it  already  had  all  its  antecedent  conditions  in  the  first  century;  wo 
can  see  this  in  the  second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  (xi.  3,  4),  in  the  Epis- 
tle to  the  Colossians,  and  in  the  Apocalypse,  where  a  form  of  Gnosticism 
is  already  clearly  indicated  (ii.  20,  24).  The  germs  of  heresy  were  sown 
abundantly  in  the  East  at  the  time  of  Ignatius.  What  in  our  view  ren- 
ders the  hypothesis  of  the  unauthenticity  of  these  letters  inadmissible,  i» 
that  it  seems  impossible  to  invent,  not  only  a  style  so  original  and  a 
thought  so  strange,  but  especially  such  a  character.  There  is  a  man  in 
these  letters,  and  a  man  who  is  not  manufactured. 

The  following  are  some  quotations  from  our  Gospel  which  are  contained 
in  the  seven  letters,  the  text  of  which  can  lay  claim  to  authenticity. 
Horn.  (c.  7) :  "  The  living  water  which  speaks  in  me  says  to  me  inwardly  : 
Come  to  the  Father ;  I  take  no  pleasure  either  in  corruptible  food  or  in 
the  joys  of  this  life ;  I  desire  the  bread  of  God  which  is  the  flesh  of  Jesus 
Christ  ...  I  desire  as  drink  His  blood  which  is  incorruptible  love."  The 
entire  Gospel  of  John  is,  as  it  were,  included  in  this  cry  of  the  martyr; 
hut  comp.  more  specially  the  words  iv.  14;  xiv.  6;  vi.  27,  32,  51,  55,  56. 
Philad.  (c.  7) ;  "  The  Spirit  docs  not  deceive,  he  who  comes  from  God  ;  for 

JThey  were  published  for  tho  first  time  by  Cureton  (1845). 


166  BOOK  III.      THE  ORIGIN. 

he  knows  whence  he  comes  and  whither  he  goes,  and  he  condemns  secret 
things  "  (John  iii.  8,  20).  In  the  same  epistle  (c.  9)  :  "  He  who  is  the  door 
of  the  Father  (f)vpa  rob  narpor)  by  which  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob,  and  the 
prophets  and  the  apostles  and  the  Church  enter  "  (John  x.  7-9).  In  the 
letter  to  the  Ephesians  (c.  7),  Jesus  is  called  (kv  caput  yevo/ievor  0eo<;)  God  come 
in  the  flesh:  and  in  that  to  the  Magnesians  (c.  8)  the  expression  is  used  {avrov 
!6yor  aidiog),  His  eternal word.  The  idea  of  spiritual  communion  (evuaic),  which 
forms  the  substance  of  these  letters,  as  of  that  of  Polycarp,  rests  on  John 
xvii.,  as  Riggenbach  has  remarked. 

Hilgenfeld,  who  places  the  composition  of  these  letters  in  1G6,  finds  no 
difficulty  in  acknowledging  that  our  Gospel  (published  according  to  him 
in  130)  is  really  used  in  the  passages  quoted  in  the  letters  to  the  Romans 
and  Philadelphians ;  he  even  affirms  that  "  the  entire  theology  of  Ignatius' 
letters  rests  upon  the  Gospel  of  John."  We  welcome  this  declaration  and 
conclude  that,  however  little  authentic  matter  there  may  be  in  the  letters 
of  this  martyr,  the  existence  and  use  of  the  Gospel  of  John  are  attested 
from  the  beginning  of  the  second  century. 1 

It  remains  for  us  to  interrogate  a  final  witness — the  appendix  placed  at 
the  end  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  as  the  twenty-first  chapter,  in  particular  the 
twenty-fourth  verse,  the  authenticity  of  which  cannot  be  contested.'1  At 
the  end  of  this  account  of  one  of  the  last  appearances  of  Jesus  after  He 
rose  from  the  dead,  the  exact  text  of  a  saying  is  restored  which  Jesus  ad- 
dressed to  Peter  with  regard  to  John,  and  which  circulated  in  the  Church 
in  an  incorrect  form.  Jesus  was  made  to  say  that  John  was  not  going  to 
die.  The  author  of  the  appendix,  who  is  either  John  himself  or  one  of 
those  who  surrounded  him,  and  who  had  heard  him'  relate  this  scene  (see 
p.  64  f.),  recalls  the  fact  that  Jesus  had  not  expressed  Himself  thus,  but 
that  He  had  simply  said  :  "  If  I  will  that  He  tarry  till  I  come,  what  is  it 
to  thee?"  At  what  time  can  we  suppose  that  this  correction  was  judged 
necessary?  At  the  end  of  the  second' century,  where  Keim  places  the 
composition  of  this  passage  ?  But  at  that  time,  either  the  saying  of  Jesus 
was  forgotten,  or,  if  it  was  still  repeated,  it  was  somewhat  late  to  remove 
the  offence  which  it  might  cause.  No,  surely ;'  there  was  but  one  period 
when  this  correction  would  have  been  in  place.  It  was  when  men  saw 
the  aged  apostle  growing  feeble,  and  asked  themselves :  Is  he,  then,  going 
to  die,  in  spite  of  the  Lord's  promise  ?  Or  when  he  had  just  died,  and  the 
offence  was  really  occasioned.  This  passage,  therefore,  carries  its  date  in 
itself;  it  comes  either  from  the  days  which  preceded,  or  from  those  which 
immediately  followed  John's  death.  The  contrast  between  the  present  par- 
ticiple :  "  This  is  the  disciple  tvho  testifies  (6  p-aprvpuv)  of  these  things,"  and 
the  past  participle  :  "  and  who  wrote  them  («at  ypatyar)"  appears  to  me  to 
decide  in  favor  of  the  former  alternative.  The  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved 
was  still  living  and  testifying  when  this  passage  was  written.     However 

1  We  do  not  mention  here  either  the  Testa-  in  which  the  borrowings  from  our  Gospel  do 

merits  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs,  because  of  not  seem  to  us  by  any  means  evident, 
their  numerous  interpolations,  nor  the  Shcp-  s  It  is  known  that  it  is  not  the  same  with 

herd  of  Hernias  and  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  ver.  25,  which  is  wanting  in  the  Sinaitic  MS. 


THE  AUTHOR.  167 

this  may  be,  this  twenty-first  chapter  is  necessarily  later  than  the  Gospel ; 
hence  it  follows  that  this  work  dates  even  from  the  life  of  John. 

We  think  we  have  thus  proved  that  the  third  position  attempted  by 
criticism — that  from  110-125 — is  as  irreconcilable  with  the  facts  as  the  two 
others,  and  that  we  are  forced  to  take  a  new  step  backward,  and  to  place 
the  composition  of  this  work  in  the  latest  times  of  the  first  century.  But 
we  do  not  think  that  we  can  go  back  to  an  earlier  date.  Some  writers — 
for  example,  Wittichen,  Lange — have  attempted  to  do  this.  The  former 
dates  our  Gospel  from  70-80  (see  p.  25) ;  the  latter  places  it  before  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem.  A  period  so  far  back  is  incompatible  with  the 
knowledge  of  our  three  Synoptical  Gospels,  which  the  author  not  only 
himself  possesses,  but  which  he  supposes,  from  beginning  to  end,  to  be  in 
the  possession  of  his  readers.  The  dissemination  of  those  three  works, 
published  either  a  little  before  or  a  little  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
requires  a  considerably  long  interval  of  time  between  their  composition 
and  that  of  our  Gospel.  The  date  of  this  latter,  therefore,  must  probably 
— in  accordance  with  the  facts  which  we  have  just  set  forth — be  placed 
between  80  and  90. 


CHAPTER  SECOND. 

THE  AUTHOR. 


Mangold  formulates  his  judgment  respecting  the  external  testimonies 
relative  to  the  fourth  Gospel  in  these  terms  :  "  The  external  attestation  is 
scarcely  less  strong  than  that  for  the  Synoptical  Gospels ; "  then  he  adds  : , 
"  It  would  be  sufficient  to  authenticate  it,  if  the  internal  reasons  did  not 
oppose  to  the  admission  of  its  authenticity  objections  which,  for  me  at 
least,  remain  up  to  this  time  insurmountable."  l  It-is  this  second  class  of 
considerations  which  is  now  especially  to  occupy  us.  We  approach  the 
central  and  decisive  question — the  one  for  whose  solution  everything  that 
precedes  has  only  served  to  prepare  the  way.  It  has  been  sometimes 
claimed  that  our  Gospel  remains  what  it  is,  whoever  may  be  its  author. 
Those  who  maintain  this  proposition  do  not  themselves  seriously  believe 
what  they  affirm ;  otherwise  they  would  not  be  so  zealous  in  contending 
against  the  Johannean  origin  of  this  work.  And  when  Keim  expresses 
himself  thus  :  "The  beauty  of  this  book,  its  edifying  quality,  its  saintlincss 
...  all  this  does  not  depend  on  a  name,"  he  will  permit  us  to  reply  to 
him:  You  deceive  others,  or  you  deceive  yourself;  for  you  cannot  con- 
ceal from  yourself  the  fact  that  the  discourses  put  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus, 
and  the  conception  of  His  person  which  is  set  forth  in  this  book,  have  for 
the  Church  an  altogether  different  value,  according  as  it  is  the  beloved  apostle 
of  the  Lord  Avho  gives  us  an  account  of  what  he  has  seen  and  heard,  or  a 
thinker  of  the  second  century  who  composes  all  this  after  his  own  fancy. 

We  have  here  four  subjects  to  investigate :  1.  The  ecclesiastical  testimonies 

i  Bleek-Maugold's  Einl.,  p.  281. 


168  BOOK   III.      THE   ORIGIN. 

bearing  more  particularly  on  the  person  of  the  author ;  2.  The  objections 
raised  by  modern  criticism  against  the  result  of  this  tradition ;  3.  The  in- 
ternal proof  ,  derived  from  the  study  of  the  book  itself;  4.  The  examination 
of  the  principal  hypotheses  which  are  in  our  days  set  in  opposition  to  the 
traditional  opinion  of  the  Johannean  origin. 

I  1.    THE  TRADITIONAL  TESTIMONIES. 

Our  point  of  departure  is  the  period  at  which  the  general  conviction  of 
the  Church  expresses  itself  by  a  collection  of  indisputable  testimonies,  in 
the  last  third  of  the  second  century. 

We  find  here  Clement  of  Alexandria,  who  relates  to  us  the  origin  of  the 
fourth  Gospel  in  the  following  manner :  "  John,  the  last,  perceiving  that 
the  bodily  things  (to,  aufiariKa,  the  external  facts)  had  been  related  in  the 
Gospels,  .  .  .  composed  a  spiritual  Gospel  "  (Eus.  H.  E.,  vi.  14). 

Polycrates  of  Ephesus,at  the  same  time,  expresses  himself  thus  :  "  Illus- 
trious men  are  buried  in  Asia,  Philip  ...  at  Hierapolis  ;  and,  moreover, 
John,  who  rested  on  the  bosom  of  the  Lord,  and  who  is  buried  at  Ephesus  " 
(Eus.  H.  E.,  v.  31).  This  testimony  proves  that  at  Ephesus  John  was  re- 
garded as  the  author  of  the  Gospel,  since  no  one  doubted  that  he  was  the 
beloved  disciple  who  is  spoken  of  in  John  xiii.  25. 

Irenaeus  thus  closes  his  report  respecting  the  composition  of  the  Gos- 
pels :  "  After  that,  John,  the  disciple  of  the  Lord  who  rested  on  His 
bosom,  also  published  the  Gospel  while  he  dwelt  at  Ephesus,  in  Asia  " 
{Adv.  Haer.  iii.  1). 

We  have  already  quoted  the  testimony  of  Theophilus :  "  All  the  in- 
spired men,  among  whom  John  says,  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word." 
The  following  is  the  way  in  which  the  Muratorian  fragment  relates  the 
origin  of  our  Gospel :  "  The  author  of  the  fourth  among  the  Gospels  is 
John,  one  of  the  disciples.1  As  his  fellow-disciples  and  the  bishops  ex- 
horted him  [to  write],  he  said  to  them  :  Fast  with  me  these  three  days, 
and  we  will  mutually  relate  to  each  other  what  shall  have  been  revealed 
to  each  one.  In  that  same  night  it  was  revealed  to  Andrew,  one  of  the 
apostles,  that  John  should  relate  everything  in  his  own  name,  all  the 
others  revising  [his  narrative]. .  .  .  What  is  there,  then,  surprising  in  this, 
that  John,  in  his  epistles,  sets  forth  these  things  in  detail,  saying  in  refer- 
ence to  himself :  That  which  we  have  seen  with  our  eyes,  that  which  we 
have  heard  with  our  ears,  and  that  which  our  hands  have  handled,  we 
write  unto  you.  Thus  he  declares  himself  successively  eye  and  ear-wit- 
ness, and,  moreover,  a  redactor  of  the  wonderful  things  of  God."  Hilgen- 
feld  claims  that  we  find  in  this  report  an  allusion  to  doubts  which  existed 
at  that  time  respecting  the  Johannean  origin  of  our  Gospel.  Hesse,  in 
his  excellent  work  on  the  Muratorian  fragment,  has  shown  that  this  pas- 

1  This  term  is  not  opposed  to  the  term  apos-       by  Papias  to  all  the  apostles,  and  many  times 
tie,  as  Reuss  thinks.    It  is  the  translation  of        by  Irenaeus  to  John  himself  (iii.  1,  3, 4). 
the  term  na0ijr>)s  toO  xvpiov  which  is  applied 


THE   AUTHOR — TESTIMONIES.  1G9 

sage  betrays  no  such  intention.  The  expression  "what  is  there  surpris- 
ing? "  applies  not  to  the  Gospel,  but  to  the  epistle. 

Starting  from  this  point,  let  us  try  to  ascend  the  stream  of  tradition 
even  to  the  apostolic  times,  and  to  search  out  the  earliest  indications  of 
that  conviction  which  shows  itself  so  universally  at  the  end  of  the 
second  century.  Between  140  and  150,  it  expresses  itself,  as  it  seems  to  us, 
in  an  unquestionable  manner. 

We  have  seen  that  Justin,  according  to  the  nearly  universal  admission 
at  the  present  day,  places  our  Gospel  in  the  number  of  the  Memoirs  re- 
specting the  life  of  Jesus,  of  which  he  habitually  made  use.  He  calls 
these  writings  Memoirs  of  the  apostles,  and  declares  that  some  were  com- 
posed by  apostles  and  others  by  apostolic  helpers.  Consequently,  if  the 
fourth  Gospel  formed  a  part  of  them,  Justin  could  ascribe  it  only  to  an 
apostle,  and  this  apostle  could  only  be  John,  since  no  one  has  ever 
attempted  to  ascribe  this  book  to  any  other  apostolic  personage  than 
John.  And  as,  according  to  Justin,  the  Memoirs  of  the  apostles  already 
formed  a  collection,  which  was  joined  with  that  of  the  prophets  and  read, 
side  by  side  with  the  latter,  in  the  public  worship  of  the  Christians,  it 
must  have  been  at  that  period  that  the  four  identically-framed  titles  were 
placed  at  the  beginning  of  the  Gospels :  "  according  to  Matthew  .  .  .  ac- 
cording to  John."  This  designation  by  titles — a  work  of  the  Church — 
accompanied  the  uniting  of  them  in  a  canonical  collection.  The  title, 
according  to  John,  is,  therefore,  the  expression  of  the  general  sentiment 
of  the  churches  touching  this  book  in  the  middle  of  the  second  century. 

And  it  was  not  only  the  orthodox  churches  which,  already  at  that  period, 
had  this  thought ;  it  was  also  the  sects  which  were  separated  from  the  great 
body  of  the  Church ;  witness,  on  one  side,  Marcion,  who  rejected  our  Gospel", 
not  because  it  was  not  by  an  apostle  of  Jesus,  but,  on  the  contrary,  inas- 
much as  it  was  composed  by  one  of  them,  that  is  to  say  by  John  (see  p. 
156) ;  witness  also  the  most  illustrious  disciple  of  Valentinus,  Ptolemy, 
who,  in  his  letter  to  Flora,  quoted  our  Gospel,  saying  :  "  The  apostle  de- 
clares "  (p.  144).  According  to  Ircnoeus,  Ptolemy  even  went  so  far  as  to 
affirm,  because  of  the  prologue  of  the  Gospel,  that  the  true  author  of  the 
Valentinian  Ogdoad  was  John  (p.  144). 

Going  still  further  back  to  a  period  from  which  only  rare  monuments 
remain  to  us,  we  discover  always  the  same  conviction. 

We  have  already  seen  that,  in  the  view  of  Papias,  John  was  not  only  an 
apostle,  but  an  evangelist,  and  that  it  is  this  quality  of  author  of  a  Gospel 
which  most  naturally  explains  the  position  which  he  assigns  to  him  in  his 
famous  list  of  apostles  by  the  side  of  Matthew  (see  pp.  43,  160  f.). 

If  we  do  not  possess  any  special  testimony  of  Polycarp,  there  is  a  fact 
of  much  more  considerable  importance  than  any  declaration  whatever 
could  have.  Polycarp  lived  up  to  the  middle  of  the  second  century ;  it 
was,  then,  during  his  activity  as  bishop  of  Smyrna,  that  our  Gospel  began 
to  be  circulated,  and  that  it  was  spread  throughout  the  whole  Church  as 
John's  work.  If  he  had  not  believed  in  the  Johannean  origin  of  this  work, 
he  would  not  have  failed  to  deny  it ;  for  the  use  which  the  Gnostics  mado 


170  BOOK   III.      THE  ORIGIN. 

of  this  book  rendered  it  very  compromising  for  the  Church,  of  which  Poly- 
carp  was  the  most  venerated  leader ;  and  the  least  denial  on  the  part  of 
such  a  man  would  have  profoundly  shaken  the  opinion  of  the  Church. 
But  nothing  of  the  kind  occurred.  History  does  not  indicate  the  least 
trace  of  hesitation,  either  in  the  case  of  Poly  carp  himself  or  among  the 
members  of  the  Church.  No  one  of  the  presbyters  of  whom  Ireneeus 
speaks,  and  who  "  lived  with  John  in  Asia  up  to  the  time  of  Trajan,"  ex- 
pressed a  doubt — so  that  our  Gospel  was  received  without  dispute,  from 
one  end  of  the  world  to  the  other,  as  the  work  of  John.  This  absence  of 
protestation  is  a  negative  fact  of  a  very  positive  importance.  We  must 
not  confound  it  with  a  mere  literary  silence  which  can  be  explained  by 
accidental  circumstances. 

But  from  this  period  and  from  the  circle  even  in  which  John  lived,  a 
positive  testimony  makes  itself  heard  :  "This  disciple  [the  one  whom  Jesus 
loved]  is  he  who  testifieth  of  these  things  and  who  wrote  these  things ;  and 
we  know  tljat  his  testimony  is  true."  This  is  what  we  read  in  John  xxi. 
24.  Who  are  those  who  speak  to  lis  in  this  way,  and  who  thus  attest  the 
composition  of  the  fourth  Gospel  by  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved  ?  They 
are  personally  acquainted  with  him,  since,  in  virtue  of  the  knowledge 
which  they  have  of  him,  they  believe  themselves  able  to  guarantee  the 
truth  of  his  testimony.  They  do  this  during  his  life,  since  they  say  of  him : 
"  who  testifieth  and  wrote  "  .(p.  166).  They  live  about  him,  therefore,  and  it 
is  in  their  hands,  undoubtedly,  that  he  deposited  his  book ;  and,  before 
giving  it  to  the  public,  they  supply  this  postscript,  clearly  perceiving  that, 
by  reason  of  the  differences  which  exist  between  this  work  and  its  prede- 
cessors, it  will  have  some  difficulty  in  opening  a  way  for  itself.  How  can 
the  force  of  such  testimony  be  escaped  ?  Beuss  supposes  that  those  who 
gave  it  were  bona  fide  deceived,  and  that,  living  already  quite  a  long  time 
after  John's  death,  they  confounded  with  him  the  anonymous  writer  who 
had,  by  means  of  his  narratives,  composed  the  Gospel.  But  we  have  al- 
ready seen  that  this  twenty-first  chapter  can  only  have  been  written  at  a 
period  very  near  to  the  death  of  John,  when  such  an  error  was  not  pos- 
sible. The  use  of  the  present:  "he  who  testifieth,"  confirms  this  remark. 
There  would  be  only  one  possible  supposition,  namely  :  that  the  pseudo- 
John,  in  the  course  of  the  second  century,  had  himself  furnished  this  at- 
testation. After  having  assumed  the  mask  of  St.  John,  he  attempted  to 
sustain  his  first  fraud  by  adding  to  it  a  second.  He  imagined  a  circle  of 
friends  of  the  apostle,  and  himself  composed,  under  their  name,  the  post- 
script which  we  have  just  read.  The  composers  of  apocryphal  works  have 
often  been  excused  by  speaking  of  pious  fraud.  But  here  we  should  evi- 
dently have  something  more;  we  should  even  come  to  the  borders  of 
knavery.  And  he  who  imagined  a  course  like  this,  is  the  man  to  whom 
we  must  attribute  the  qualities  of  moral  purity,  profound  holiness,  intimate 
communion  with  God,  which  were  necessary  for  the  composition  of  such  a 
Gospel !     The  psychological  and  moral  sense  protests. 

In  the  whole  course  of  the  second  century,  there  exists,  so  far  as  our 
knowledge  extends,  but  one  single  denial  of  the  Johannean  origin  of  the 


THE  AUTHOR — OBJECTIONS.  171 

fourth  Gospel.  A  party,  to  which  Epiphanius  gave  the  name  Alogi  (a?.oyoc, 
those  who  deny  the  Logos),  maintained  that  the  author  of  this  work  was, 
not  the  Apostle  John,  but  the  heretic  Cerinthus,  his  adversary  at  Ephesus. 
This  rejection  was  not  founded  on  any  traditional  testimony.  "The 
grounds  on  which  those  persons  rested,"  says  Zeller  himself,  "were,  so  far 
as  we  are  acquainted  with  them,  derived  from  internal  criticism  .  .  ." 
What  follows  from  this  fact — the  only  one  which  the  adversaries  of  the 
authenticity  can  allege?  Two  things :  first,  that  the  Alogi  lacked  all  sup- 
port from  tradition ;  secondly,  that  there  did  not  exist  a  shadow  of  doubt 
respecting  the  fact  that  our  Gospel  was  composed  at  Ephesus  in  the  time 
of  St.  John,  since  Cerinthus,  to  whom  they  ascribed  it,  was  the  contempo- 
rary and  rival  of  this  apostle.  The  sole  opponents  are,  thus,  transformed 
into  witnesses  and  defenders. 


?2»  THE  OBJECTIONS. 

It  is  in  opposition  to  this  result  of  a  tradition  which  may  be  called 
unanimous,  that  many  scholars  rise  up  at  the  present  day,  and  we  have 
now  to  examine  their  reasons. 

Hase,  in  his  Histoi-y  of  Jesus,  enumerates  eight  objections  against  the 
authenticity ;  after  having  successively  set  them  aside,  he  makes  for  him- 
self a  ninth  which  he  does  not  succeed  in  solving,  and  which  determines 
his  negative  vote.  We  shall  follow  him  in  this  very  clear  exposition.  Only 
of  these  nine  objections  we  shall  detach  some  which  he  unites  with  the 
others,  and  which  it  seems  to  us  preferable  to  treat  separately.  The  first 
seven,  as  we  shall  see,  have  already  found  their  solution  implicitly  in  the 
preceding  pages. 

I.  The  silence  of  the  most  ancient  Fathers,  particularly  those  of  Asia 
Minor,  respecting  the  fourth  Gospel.  It  seems  to  us  that  the  two  pre- 
ceding chapters  have  solved  this  objection.  Hase  justly  observes  that 
"  nothing  is  more  uncertain  than  this  assertion  :  a  writer  must  have  spoken 
of  a  certain  thing  or  a  certain  person."  The  Synoptical  Gospels  had  been 
for  a  long  time  spread  abroad  ;  they  had  already  for  a  generation  formed 
the  substance  of  the  knowledge  which  the  Church  possessed  of  the  history 
of  Jesus.  The  Gospel  of  John,  which  was  quite  recent,  had  not  yet  made 
its  way  nor  exerted  its  own  influence ;  time  must  be  allowed  for  it  to  take 
its  place,  before  an  appeal  could  be  made  to  its  narratives  in  the  same 
way  as  to  those  of  the  earlier  Gospels.  We  find  this  to  be  the  fact  only 
after  the  time  of  Justin. 

II.  John,  being  Judaizing  as  he  was,  cannot  be  the  author  of  a  Gospel  as 
spiritual  as  that  which  bears  his  name.  This,  as  it  seems,  is  the  strongest 
objection  in  the  view  of  Schurer :  "  It  is  psychologically  inconceivable  that 
an  apostle  who,  in  his  mature  age,  still  disputed  with  Paul  respecting  the 
permanent  value  of  the  law,  should  have  afterwards  written  a  Gospel  whose 
anti-Judaism  surpasses  even  that  of  Paul." l — We  think  we  have  shown 

iStudien  u.  Kritiken,  187C,  iv.,  p.  774. 


172  book  nr.    the  origin. 

that  this  estimate  of  John's  standpoint  according  to  Gal.  ii.  is  ill  founded. 
The  apostles  personally  observed  the  law,  but  not  with  the  idea  of  its  per- 
manent value  for  salvation ;  otherwise  they  must  have  imposed  it  on  the 
Gentiles;  and  instead  of  giving  the  hand  of  fellowship  to  Paul  and  Barna- 
bas, they  would  have  finally  broken  with  them.  The  difference  being  a 
matter  of  practice,  not  of  principle,  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  must  have  resulted 
in  the  settlement  of  it,  by  breaking  up  the  last  remnant  of  solidarity 
between  the  apostles  and  their  own  people.  Hase  rightly  remarks,  that 
the  residence  of  John  in  Asia  Minor,  his  activity  in  the  field  which  had 
been  sowed  by  Paul,  and  the  immense  influence  which  he  notoriously 
exercised  in  that  country  of  Greek  culture  prove  with  what  breadth,  flexi- 
bility and  freedom  of  mind  he  adapted  himself  to  this  new  region,  and 
knew  how  to  become  a  Greek  with  the  Greeks. 

III.  The  Christianity  of  the  churches  of  Asia  Minor  had  a  legal  charac- 
ter. Now,  if  John  was  the  author  of  such,  a  teaching,  he  cannot  have 
been  the  writer  who  composed  our  Gospel.  But  on  what  does  this  affirm- 
ation of  the  Judaizing  character  of  the  churches  of  Asia  Minor  rest?  On 
their  gross  Chiliasm,  it  is  answered.  We  have  already  seen  that  almost 
the  whole  Church  of  the  second  and  of  the  greater  part  of  the  third  cen- 
tury was  devoted  to  Millenarianism ;  nevertheless  it  was  not  Judaistic. 
Moreover,  the  Paschal  rite  of  these  churches  is  alleged,  in  which  their 
Judaistic  sympathies  are  betrayed.  The  churches  of  Asia  celebrated  the 
Holy  Supper  of  the  Paschal  feast  on  the  14th  of  Nisan  in  the  evening,  in- 
dependently of  the  day  of  the  week  on  which  this  monthly  date  fell,  while 
the  other  churches,  Rome  in  particular,  celebrated  the  Holy  Paschal  Sup- 
per on  the  Sunday  morning  which  followed  Good  Friday,  whatever  might 
be  the  day  of  the  month  on  which  that  Sunday  occurred.  What  were  the 
reasons  which  had  determined  the  rite  which  the  churches  of  Asia  had 
adopted?  Either  they  wished  thus  to  celebrate  the  evening  of  the  day 
in  the  afternoon  of  which,  according  to  the  fourth  Gospel,  Christ  died 
(the  14th  of  Nisan,  the  day  before  the  Passover) ;  in  that  case,  whatever 
Baur  may  say,  the  Asiatic  rite  rests  on  the  narrative  of  the  Passion 
according  to  the  fourth  Gospel,  and  bears  witness  thereby  to  the  authen- 
ticity of  this  work ;  this  rite  is,  therefore,  entirely  independent  of  Jewish 
legality.  Or  the  churches  of  Asia  celebrated  the  Supper  on  the  evening 
of  the  14th,  because  it  was  on  that  evening  that  the  Jews  celebrated  the 
Paschal  feast, — and  this  is  the  explanation  which  certain  expressions  of 
the  Fathers  render  most  probable.  Would  this  be  a  symptom  of  Jewish 
legality?  But  St.  Paul  himself  saw  in  the  Paschal  lamb  the  symbol  of 
Christ  (1  Cor.  v.  7) ;  he  very  carefully  regarded  the  Jewish  feasts, 
particularly  that  of  the  Passover,  as  is  proved  by  Acts  xx.  6 :  "  After 
the  days  of  unleavened  bread,  we  set  sail  from  Philippi,"  and  1  Cor. 
v.  8,  where,  exactly  at  the  time  of  the  Passover  feast  (comp.  xvi.  8),  he 
represents  the  Christian  life  as  a  permanent  feast  of  unleavened  bread. 
It  is  probable,  therefore,  that  it  was  Paul,  and  not  John,  who  had  origi- 
nally introduced  at  Ephesus  this  Paschal  rite  which  John  merely  continued. 
We  find  here  the  same  symbolism  in  virtue  of  which  Jesus,  in  the  institu- 


THE   AUTHOR — OBJECTIONS.  173 

tion  of  the  Holy  Supper,  had  transformed  the  memorial  of  the  deliver- 
ance from  Egypt  into  a  memorial  of  eternal  redemption. 

IV.  The  divergences  from  the  Synoptics. — We  have  already  treated  this 
subject,  and  shown  in  detail  that  they  are  all  to  the  advantage  of  the 
fourth  Gospel,  and  evidently  prove  its  historical  superiority,  so  that,  far 
from  forming  a  point  in  the  argument  against  the  authenticity  of  this 
work,  they  are  one  of  the  most  decisive  proofs  in  favor  of  it. 

V.  The  elevated,  and,  for  the  multitude,  often  even  incomprehensible,  con- 
tents of  the  discourses  of  Jesus.  This  subject  has  been  treated  at  length ; 
it  is  unnecessary  to  return  to  it. 

VI.  How  could  a  Galilean  fisherman  have  attained  such  profound  wisdom 
as  that  which  shines  forth  in  many  parts  of  our  Gospel  ?  But,  we  will  ask 
in  our  turn,  how  can  we  estimate  what  an  intimate  and  prolonged 
contact  with  the  Lord  may  have  produced  in  an  ardent  and  profound 
soul,  such  as  John's  must  have  been  ?  "  If,"  says  Hase,  admirably,  "  the 
highest  human  wisdom  has  come  from  Christianity,  must  it  not  be  allowed 
that,  in  proximity  to  a  being  like  Jesus,  a  young  man  with  a  rich  and  pro- 
found soul  may  have  been  developed  and,  as  it  were,  set  on  fire?  A  mind 
so  powerful  as  that  which,  in  any  case,  Jesus  had,  does  not  merely  attach 
itself  to  a  faithful  and  loyal  heart,  but  also  to  a  mind  which  has  lofty 
aims  and  aspirations.  Most  certainly,  if  John,  when  he  taught  in  Asia, 
had  only  possessed  the  apostolic  simplicity  and  culture  of  the  Galilean 
fisherman,  he  would  not  have  produced  in  that  country  the  enduring  im- 
pression of  admiration  and  veneration  which  he  left  there." 

VII.  The  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  came  forth  from  the  Gnostic  cir- 
cles of  the  second  century,  not  from  the  apostolic  college.  We  have 
weighed  this  proposition,  and  it  has  been  found  to  be  too  weak.  There- 
was  certainly  an  elementary  Gnosticism  which  dated  from  the  apostolic 
times,  and  with  which  already  the  epistles  of  Paul  and  the  letters  in  the 
Apocalypse  contended ;  it  is  against  this  that  the  first  epistle  of  John  is 
directed.  It  has  nothing  in  common  with  the  great  Gnostic  systems  of 
the  second  century,  except  the  general  tendency ;  and  the  fourth  evangel- 
ist, far  from  having  been  formed  under  the  influence  of  these  latter  sys- 
tems, furnished  in  his  book  a  part  of  the  materials  by  means  of  which  the 
leaders  of  those  schools  constructed  their  edifices  on  the  very  ground  of 
Christianity. 

VIII.  We  come  to  the  decisive  point,  the  doctrine  of  the  Logos.  The 
Judseo-  Alexandrian  origin  of  this  idea  and  this  term  is  historically  proved; 
this  alone  is  enough  to  prove  that  an  apostle  of  Jesus  cannot  have  writ- 
ten a  book  which  rests  altogether  upon  it.  It  must,  therefore,  be  ad- 
mitted that,  as  Philo,  the  principal  representative  of  Alexandiianism  at 
that  period,  made  use  of  the  ideas  of  Greek  philosophy  to  give  a  rational 
account  of  the  religious  contents  of  his  Jewish  beliefs,  in  the  same  way  the 
author  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  in  his  turn,  made  use  of  Philo  in  order  to 
appropriate  to  himself  speculatively  the  contents  of  his  Christian  beliefs.1 

13ee  La  doctrine  du  Logos  dans  lequutrieme  eiangilc,  etc.,  by  Jean  R6vllle,  pp.  179, 1*0. 


174  BOOK   III.      THE   OTtTGIN. 

Two  facts  give  an  apparent  support  to  this  explanation  of  the  Johannean 
teaching:  1.  The  term  Logos  inscribed  at  the  beginning  of  our  Gospel, 
which  is  precisely  the  one  by  which  Philo  expresses  the  fundamental 
notion  of  his  philosophy ;  2.  The  idea  itself  of  an  intermediate  being 
between  God  and  the  world,  by  means  of  whom  the  absolute  being  com- 
municates with  finite  beings.  But  it  is  to  this  point  that  the  whole  anal- 
ogy is  limited.  And  it  remains  to  inquire  whether  what  the  two  writers 
have  in  common  in  this  relation  is  not  explained  by  means  of  a  higher 
source  from  which  they  both  drew,  or  whether  the  fourth  evangelist  was 
really  formed  in  the  school  of  the  Alexandrian  philosopher.1 

In  this  last  case,  there  may  be  differences  of  detail  between  them, 
undoubtedly,  but  the  same  general  tendency  will  necessarily  be  found  in 
them  both.  Now,  there  is  nothing  of  this.  The  notion  of  the  Logos  is  for 
Philo  a  metaphysical  theory  ;  with  John,  a  fact  of  Divine  love.  For  the 
former,  God,  being  raised  above  all' particular  determination,  is  not  appre- 
hensible by  the  human  reason,  and  cannot  communicate  with  matter 
except  by  means  of  the  being  in  whom  He  manifests  Himself;  the  Logos 
is  the  Divine  reason,  which  conceives  finite  things  and  realizes  them  in 
the  material  world.  With  John,  on  the  contrary,  the  idea  of  this  being  is 
a  postulate  of  eternal  love.  "  For  thou  didst  love  me  before  the  creation 
of  the  world  "  (xvii.  24) ;  and  to  this  love  of  God  for  the  Logos  corre- 
sponds that  of  the  Logos  for  God  Himself:  "  In  the  beginning  was  the 
Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God;"  literally,  tended  to  God,  moved 
toward  God.  There  is  no  secondary  difference  here ;  we  are  in  the  pres- 
ence of  two  different  tendencies ; — on  the  one  side,  that  of  philosophical 
speculation,  the  heed  of  knowing ;  on  the  other,  that  of  piety,  the  need 
of  salvation.  Not  that  I  would  say  that  all  piety  is  wanting  to  Philo,  and 
all  need  of  knowing  to  John.  The  question  here  is  of  the  point  of  sup- 
port of  the  two  teachings  in  the  souls  of  the  two  writers. 

With  this  fundamental  difference  is  connected  the  following  fact :  The 
doctrine  of  the  Logos  with  Philo  has  its  value  in  itself,  as  an  idea  indis- 
pensable to  human  speculation ;  with  John,  this  idea  is  only  at  the  ser- 
vice of  an  historical  fact,  a  means  of  explaining  the  divine  element  which 
the  author  perceived  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ.  Reville  complains 
several  times  of  the  fact  that  the  speculative  data  respecting  the  nature 
and  activity  of  the  Logos  "  are  'extremely  limited  in  the  prologue  of  John 
...  A  little  more  speculation,  for  the  clearness  of  the  narrative,  would 
not  have  been  misplaced  "  (pp.  37,  88).  This  charge  is  naive;  the 
young  writer  demands  of  the  fourth  Gospel  that  it  should  be  what  it 
ought  to  have  been,  assuredly,  if  it  were  that  which  he  would  desire  it  to 
be.  He  wishes  to  make  of  it  a  philosophical  work,  and,  as  it  does  not 
respond  to  this  demand,  he  censures  it  instead  of  turning  his  criticism 

1  Let  us  recall  to  mind  the  fact  that  Philo  in  which  he  tries  to  show  the  relation  be- 

lived  in  the  first  century  of  our  era,  and  that  tween  the  Jewish   beliefs   and    the  Greek 

he  was  a  member  of  a  rich  Jewish  family  of  philosophies,  especially  those  of  Plate  aDd 

Alexandria.    He  wrote  a  multitude  of  trea-  the  Stoics. 
tises  on  philosophical  and  religious  subjects, 


THE   AUTHOR — OBJECTIONS.  175 

agftinst  his  own  theory.  There  is  no  philosophical  speculation  in  the 
prologue ;  there  is  simply  a  conception  of  the  person  of  Jesus  expressed 
by  means  of  a  term  which  was  current  at  that  period  in  the  philosophical 
language. 

And  further,  this  term  is  taken  in  a  wholly  different  sense  from  that 
which  it  has  in  speculation  generally,  and  in  that  of  Philo  in  particular. 
With  the  latter,  the  word  Logos  is  used  in  the  sense  of  reason;  it  denotes 
the  Divine  reason,  whether  residing  in  God  or  as  realized  in  the  world  of 
finite  beings — in  the  sense  in  which  the  Stoics  spoke  of  reason  diffused 
through  all  beings  (6  icoivbg  '/.6yog  6  6ta  k&vtuv  ipx6ficvog).  Thus  Philo  calls 
it  sometimes  the  idea  of  ideas  (ISia  ISeuv)  or  the  metropolis  of  ideas.  It  is 
the  ideal  of  the  finite  world,  in  its  whole  and  in  its  details,  as  existing  in 
the  divine  understanding.  With  John,  the  term  Logos  is  evidently  taken 
in  the  sense  of  word ;  this  is  its  constant  meaning  throughout  the  Gospel, 
where  it  denotes  the  divine  revelation,  and  even  in  the  prologue,  where  the 
creative  word  of  Genesis  is  personified  under  this  name.  When  Philo 
wishes  to  express  this  idea,  he  adds  to  the  word  Logos  (reason)  the  term 
pfjiia  (word,  in  the  special  sense  of  the  word).  Thus  in  this  passage  :  "  God 
creates  the  one  and  the  other  (the  heaven  and  the  earth)  t<j  eavrov  Xdyy 
pfjiiari.  (by  his  own  Logos-ivord)."  Or  he  uses  only  the  second  term  :  "  The 
whole  world  was  made  did.  p/}fiarog  tov  alriov  (by  the  word,  the  cause  of  things)." 
This  difference  arises  from  the  fact  that  Philo  moves  in  the  sphere  of  specu- 
lation, John  in  that  of  the  divine  action  for  the  salvation  of  humanity. 

How  different,  also,  the  part  played  by  the  Logos  in  the  one  and  in  the 
other !  The  Logos  of  Philo  is  a  universal  principle,  the  general  law  of 
things ;  it  is  not  placed  in  any  relation  to  the  person  of  the  Messiah  ;  while, 
with  John,  the  Messiah  is  Himself  this  incarnate  Word,  the  gift  which  the 
Father  makes  to  the  world  and  by  means  of  which  He  comes  to  save  it. 
The  mere  supposition  of  the  incarnation  of  the  Logos  would  be,  whatever 
Reville  may  say,  an  enormity  to  the  view  of  Philo.  Does  not  sin  arise 
from  matter,  and  does  not  the  defilement  of  the  human  soul  result  from 
its  connection  with  a  body?  What  blasphemy,  therefore,  would  it  not  be, 
to  represent  the  Logos  as  having  appeared  in  a  human  person  having  a 
soul  and  body!  The  Messiah  of  Philo  is,  also,  only  a  simple  man  who 
will  bring  back  the  Jews  from  their  dispersion  and  will  restore  to  them 
the  glorious  state  to  which  they  are  entitled. 

In  the  spiritual  world  itself  the  part  sustained  by  the  Logos  differs  en- 
tirely in  the  conception  of  Philo  from  what  it  is  in  that  of  John.  With 
the  latter,  the  Logos  is  the  light  of  men  (i.  4),  and,  if  there  is  darkness  in 
the  world,  it  is  because  the  world  has  not  known  Him — Him  who  con- 
tinues to  act  in  His  creation  by  illuminating  every  man  (vv.  9,  10).  To  the 
view  of  Philo,  the  Logos  is  indeed  the  interpreter  of  God,  but  not  for  the 
men  who  belong  to  the  rank  of  the  perfect.  The  true  sage  rises  by  the  act 
of  immediate  contemplation  even  to  the  knowledge  of  God,  without  de- 
pending on  the  aid  of  the  Logos.  The  Logos  is  the  God  of  the  imperfect, 
who,  not  being  able  to  rise  as  far  as  the  model,  must  be  content  to  con- 
template the  portrait.    The  Logos  of  Philo,  says  Gess,  is  a  guide  who  does 


176  BOOK   III.      THE   ORIGIN. 

not  lead  to  the  end,  to  God  Himself;  a  God,  in  whom  one  does  not  possess 
the  real  God.  To  speculate  is  to  work  on  the  Logos,  on  the  Divine  reason 
manifested  in  the  world;  but,  on  this  path,  one  will  by  no  means  reach 
God  Himself;  one  comes  to  Him  only  by  the  way  of  immediate  intuition, 
which  passes  one  side  of  the  Logos.  Here  is  not  the  Logos  of  the  fourth 
Gospel,  in  which  Jesus  says :  "  I  am  the  way,  the  truth  and  the  life;  no  one 
cometh  to  the  Father  but  by  me." 

Finally,  the  intention  of  the  theory  of  the  Logos  with  Philo  is  to  preserve 
God  from  all  compromising  contact  with  the  material  world.  God  is  an 
absolutely  transcendent  being  who  cannot,  without  derogation,  unite  Him- 
self with  the  finite  world. ,  Reville,  indeed,  cites  a  certain  number  of  cases 
where  God  seems  endowed  with  goodness  and  grace,  and  acts  by  Himself 
in  the  finite  world.  This  is  a  remnant  of  the  influence  exercised  on  the 
thought  of  the  Jewish  philosopher  by  the  living  monotheism  of  the  Old 
Testament.  We  might  add  such  passages  to  the  innumerable  proofs  of 
inconsistency  which  are  found  in  the  speculation  of  Philo  ;  but  it  is  also 
possible  that  he  attributes  these  divine  communications  to  the  action  of 
God  confounded  with  that  of  the  Logos.  The  Divine  being,  with  John — 
He  whom  he  calls  absolutely  God — is  not  an  indeterminable  essence ;  He 
is  a  person  full  of  will,  of  activity,  of  love ;  He  is  the  Father,  who  loves  not 
only  the  Son  whom  He  sacrifices,  but  also  the  world  to  which  He  gives 
Him ;  who,  by  an  inward  teaching  and  an  attraction  exercised  on  human 
individuals,  brings  them  to  the  Son  Himself;  "  No  man,"  says  Jesus,  "  can 
come  to  me  except  the  Father  who  hath  sent  me  draw  him  .  .  .  All  that 
the  Father  giveth  me,  shall  come  to  me  "  (John  vi.  44  and  37).  This  Father 
"  Himself  beareth  witness  to  the  Son  "  through  acts  wrought  in  the  domain 
of  matter,  the  miracles  (v.  36).  He  even  causes  to  resound  in  the  temple 
an  outwardly  perceptible  voice  in  answer  to  a  prayer  of  Jesus  (xii.  28). 
Thus  the  conception  of  John  is  so  completely  the  opposite  to  that  of  Philo, 
that  it  makes  of  the  Father  an  intermediate  agent  between  Jesus  and  men, 
so  that  Jesus  can  utter  those  words,  which  would  have  been,  for  Philo,  the 
height  of  absurdity:  "Thine  they  were,  and  Thou  gavest  them  me" 
(xvii.  6).1 

The  difference  between  John  and  Philo  is  so  profound,  that  Gess,  the 
one  who  has  most  thoroughly  studied  them  both,  has  said :  "  He  who 
believes  that  he  can  unite  in  one  the  thought  of  John  and  that  of  Philo, 
understands  nothing  either  of  John  or  of  Philo."2  It  is  not  in  certain 
details-only,  it  is  in  the  tendency  itself,  that  they  differ.  And  yet  there  are 
between  the  two,  as  we  have  seen,  certain  analogies  of  which  it  is  necessary 

1  See  Gess,  II.,  p.  G42  ff.  rTiy  name  "(see  our  second  ed.,  vol.  III.,  p.  2S2). 

2The  defenders  of  the  theory  which  we  con-  It  happens  that  Reville  commits  a  similar 

tend  against  are  so  dominated  by  their  pre-  mistake  in  quoting  the  same  verse:  "A  voice 

conceived  idea,  that  they  even  fashion  after  came  from  heaven  and  said:  'I  have  both 

their  own  fancy,  without  hesitation,  the  texts  glorified  thee,  and  will  also  glorify  thee  [thee, 

which  they  quote.    Thus  we  have  pointed  Jesus],'  while  the  actual  voice  said :  '  I  have 

out  that  error  of  Colaui,  who,  quoting  the  both  glorified  it,  and  will  also  glorify  it  [my 

prayer  of  Jesus,  John  xii.  28,  makes  him  say :  name].' " 
"  Father,  glorify  my  name,"  instead  of  "glorify 


THE   AUTHOR — OBJECTIONS.  177 

to  find  the  cause.  But  is  it  so  difficult  to  discover  it?  Are  not  Philo  and 
John,  both  of  them,  Jews,  reared  in  the  school  of  the  law  and  the  prophets  ? 
Three  converging  lines  in  the  Old  Testament  lead  to  a  single  end :  1 . 
The  notion  of  the  Word  of  God,  as  a  manifestation  of  His  all  powerful  and 
creative  will  in  the  finite  world.  Very  frequently  this  principle  of  action 
in  God  is  even  personified  in  the  Old  Testament.  Thus  when,  in  Ps.  cvii. 
20,  it  is  said :  "  He  sendeth  His  Word,  and  it  healeth  them,"  or  Ps.  cxlvii. 
15 :  "  He  sendeth  His  Word  on  the  earth,  and  it  runneth  swiftly ;"  or  Is.  Iv. 
11 :  "  My  Word  shall  do  all  the  things  for  which  I  have  sent  it."  There  is 
evidently  here,  however,  only  a  poetic  personification.  2.  The  notion  of 
wisdom  in  the  book  of  Proverbs,  especially  in  chap.  viii.  The  author  repre- 
sents it  as  itself  describing  what  it  is  for  God  :  "  He  possessed  me  from  the 
beginning  of  his  way,  before  his  works  .  .  . ;  I  was  a  workman  with  him, 
and  I  was  his  delight  continually."  Still  a  mere  poetic  personification, 
surely.  The  word  is  a  power  of  action ;  wisdom,  an  intelligence  and  a 
conceived  plan.  3.  In  several  passages  of  Genesis,  a  being  is  spoken  of  in 
whom  Jehovah  Himself  appears  in  the  sensible  world.  He  is  sometimes 
distinguished  from  Him  by  the  name  Angel  of  the  Lord,  sometimes  con- 
founded with  Him  by  the  way  in  which  He  expresses  Himself,  saying :  I, 
in  speaking  of  Jehovah  Himself.  Some  theologians  see  in  him  only  an 
ordinary  angel, — not  always  the  same  one,  perhaps, — each  time  accom- 
plishing a  special  mission.  Others  even  deny  Him  personality,  and  see  in 
Him  only  a  sensible  form,  the  passing  mode  of  appearance  of  Jehovah 
Himself.  These  two  interpretations  are  wrecked  against  the  passage, 
Exod.  xxiii.  21,  where  God,  in  speaking  of  this  Angel  of  the  Lord,  says : 
"  Beware !  For  he  will  not  pardon  your  sin  ;  my  name  is  in  him."  The 
name  is  the  reflection  of  the  essence.  Here  this  name  is  the  reflection  of 
the  holy  essence  of  God,  inflexible  towards  the  will  which  is  obstinate  in 
sinning.  Such  a  quality  implies  personality.  The  question,  therefore,  is 
of  a  real  person,  having  a  divine  character,  and  in  whom  God  Himself 
manifests  Himself  (my  name — in  him).  This  angel  is  also  called  by  Isaiah 
(lxiii.  9) :  "  The  Angel  of  the  Presence"  of  Jehovah,  and  Malachi,  at  the  end 
of  the  Old  Testament,  taking  the  final  step,  identifies  him  with  the  Mes- 
siah :  "  Suddenly  the  Lord  whom  ye  seek  and  the  Angel  of  the  Covenant 
whom  ye  desire  shall  enter  into  his  temple;  behold,  he  cometh,  saith  the 
Lord  of  hosts."  In  this  third  idea  we  find  no  longer  only  the  divine  intel- 
ligence or  force  personified,  but  a  living  divine  being,  Him  who  should 
come  to  save  his  people  as  Messiah. — These  so  remarkable  indications 
did  not  remain  unnoticed  by  the  ancient  Jewish  doctors.  They  appear 
to  have  early  endeavored  to  bring  together  those  three  lines  into  ;i  single 
idea;  that  of  the  being  of  whom  God  makes  use  on  every  occasion  when 
He  puts  Himself  in  connection  with  the  external  world.  They  designate 
Him  sometimes  by  the  names  Shekinah  (habitation),  or  Jekara  (brightness), 
sometimes,  and  most  frequently,  by  the  name  Memar  or  Maura  di  Jehovah 
(Word  of  the  Lord).  The  Chaldaic  paraphrases  of  the  Old  Testament,  called 
Targums,  constantly  introduce  this  being  where  the  Old  Testament  speaks 
simply  of  the  Lord.  These  writings,  perhaps,  date  only  from  the  third  or 
12 


178  BOOK  III.      THE  ORIGIN. 

fourth  century  of  our  era,  it  is  true ;  but,  as  Schiirer  says,  it  is  beyond 
doubt  that  these  paraphrases  rest  upon  more  ancient  works,  and  are  the 
product  of  an  elaboration  for  ages.  Fragments  of  similar  writings  are 
preserved,  dating  from  the  second  century  before  Jesus  Christ,  from  the 
time  of  John  Hyrcanus.  Already  before  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  mention  is 
made  of  a  Targum  on  the  book  of  Job,  and  the  Mischna  (of  the  second 
century  after  Jesus  Christ)  already  speaks  of  translations  of  the  Bible  into 
Chaldee.1  It  is  infinitely  improbable,  moreover,  that  the  Jewish  theo- 
logians would  have  accepted  from  the  Christians  a  notion  so  favorable  to 
the  religion  of  the  latter.  Now,  the  following  are  some  examples  of  the 
manner  in  which  these  doctors  paraphrase  the  Old  Testament.  It  is  said 
in  Gen.  xxi.  20,  in  speaking  of  Ishmael :  "God  was  with  the  lad;"  the 
paraphrase  says  :  "  The  Word  of  Jehovah  was  with  the  lad."  xxviii.  21, 
where  Jacob  says:  "The  Lord  shall  be  my  God;"  the  Targum  makes  him 
say :  "  The  Word  of  Jehovah  shall  be  my  God."  xxxix.  21,  instead  of  "  The 
Lord  was  with  Joseph,"  ..."  the  Memra  (the  Word)  was  with  Joseph." 
Exod.  xix.  17,  instead  of  "And  Moses  brought  forth  the  people  to  meet 
God "...  "And  Moses  brought  forth  the  people  to  meet  the  Word 
of  Jehovah."  Num.  xxii.  20,  instead  of  "God  came  unto  Balaam."  .  .  . 
"  The  Word  of  Jehovah  came  unto  Balaam."  Deut.  iv.  24,  instead  of  "  God 
is  a  consuming  fire."  .  .  .  "The  Word  of  Jehovah  is  a  consuming  fire." 
Is.  i.  14,  instead  of  "My  soul  hateth  your  new  moons."  .  .  .  "My  Word 
hateth,"  .  .  .  xlii.  1,  instead  of  "  My  soul  delighteth  in  him."  ..."  My  Word 
delighteth,"  .  .  .  etc.,  etc.  It  is  therefore  indisputable  that,  at  the  time 
when  John  wrote,  the  Jewish  theology  had  already,  by  the  special  name 
of  Word,  definitely  expressed  the  idea  of  the  God  who  enters  into  connec- 
tion with  the  external  world.  It  will  have  been  noticed  that  this  form  is 
particularly  used  in  the  passages  in  which  the  Scriptures  ascribe  to  God  a 

1  human  feeling,  such  as  that  of  repenting,  of  aversion,  of  complacency,  of 

v  hatred. 

The  question  now  is  to  determine  whether  these  doctors  represented 
this  manifested  God  to  themselves  as  a  real  person  and  distinct  from  the 
person  of  God  Himself.  There  can  be  brought  forward  in  relation  to  this 
point,  just  as  in  relation  to  the  natm-e  of  the  Logos  of  Philo,  passages 
having  opposite  meanings.  Gess  regards  as  incompatible  with  the  no- 
tion of  a  real  person  the  passage  1  Kings  viii.  15,  in  which  the  Targum 
substitutes  for  the  expressions,  the  mouth  and  the  hand  of  Jehovah,  the  fol- 
lowing :  the  Word  (Memar)  and  the  will  of  Jehovah,  the  first  as  declaring, 
the  second  as  executing.  In  the  same  way,  Jer.  xxxii.  41,  or  again  Gen. 
xxii.  16,  where  the  Targum  makes  the  Lord  say  :  "  I  swear  by  my  Word," 
instead  of:  "I  swear  by  myself."  But  is  it  necessary  to  suppose  the  par- 
aphrasts  systematically  consistent  with  themselves  in  a  region  so  myste- 
rious and  obscure  ?  Besides,  it  appears  to  me  much  more  difficult  to  ex- 
plain how  God  should  swear  by  His  Word,  if  it  is  not  a  person  like  Him- 
self, than  if  it  is  a  personal  being ;  and  as  to  the  first  passage,  the  term. 

•Schiirer,  Lehrbuch  des  neutcst.  Zcitgcschichte,  p.  479. 


THE   AUTHOR — OBJECTIONS.  179 

Word  seems  to  regain  its  ordinary  meaning,  since  the  two  terms  word  and 
will  correspond  to  the  two  acts  :  speaking  and  acting.  It  is  impossible 
not  to  find  the  idea  of  personality  in  all  the  following  passages :  "  My 
Word  hates,"  "  My  Word  has  pleasure,"  "the  Word  shall  be  my  God;" 
"  the  Word  shall  contend  for  you;  "  "  the  Brightness  of  Jehovah  arose  and 
mid."  So  much  the  more,  since  in  several  passages,  instead  of  the  Word 
or  the  Brightness  of  Jehovah,  it  is  the  Angel  of  the  Lord  who  is  substi- 
tuted for  the  simple  name  of  Jehovah,  for  example,  Exod.  iv.  24,  and 
Judges  iv.  14.  Gess  objects  that  if  this  theory  of  a  second  divine  person, 
called  the  Word  of  Jehovah,  had  been  received  in  Palestine  at  that 
period,  it  could  not  be  altogether  Avanting  in  the  writings  of  St.  Paul.  But 
the  teaching  of  that  apostle  is  drawn  from  the  revelation  which  he  had 
received,  and  not  from  the  lessons  of  his  early  masters.  Paul  may  not 
have  found  in  the  region  where  he  taught,  and  at  the  time  when  he  taught, 
a  call  to  use  this  term,  while  in  the  great  centre,  Ephesus,  at  the  end  of 
the  first  century,  John  found  himself  in  circumstances  which  drew  his 
particular  attention  to  this  term.  The  passages  1  Cor.  viii.  G,  where  crea- 
tion is  attributed  to  Christ,  and  1  Cor.  x.  5,  where  Christ  is  represented  as 
the  leader  of  Israel  in  the  wilderness,  shoAV  in  any  case  that  the  notion 
itself  was  as  familiar  to  him  as  it  was  to  John ;  and  this  is  the  essential 
point. 

If  the  point  is  carefully  considered,  the  paraphrasts,  in  denying  to  God 
all  human  emotions,  in  order  to  attribute  them  to  the  Mentor  (the  Word), 
give  in  fact  to  this  manifested  God  the  seal  of  personality  in  even  a  much 
more  pronounced  way  than  to  God  Himself.  But  perhaps  it  is  with  them, 
as  with  Philo,  whose  idea  respecting  the  personality  of  the  Logos  seems 
to  be  quite  fluctuating.  Zeller  has  clearly  shown  the  cause  of  this  oscil- 
lation in  the  mind  of  this  philosopher.  On  one  side,  the  Logos  must 
appertain  to  the  essence  of  God,  which  seems  to  make  him  a  simple 
divine  attribute  (the  divine  reason  or  wisdom),  and  consequently  to  ex- 
clude personality ;  on  the  other  side,  he  must  be  in  relation  with  matter, 
in  order  to  cause  the  particular  types  to  penetrate  it  on  which  finite  things 
are  formed,  and  this  function  supposes  a  being  distinct  from  God,  and, 
consequently,  personal.  A  similar  observation  may  be  made  with  regard 
to  the  oriental  paraphrasts  ;  and  this  correspondence  between  them  would 
have  nothing  surprising  in  it  if,  as  Schiirer  thinks,  Philo's  philosophy  ex- 
ercised an  influence  on  the  exegesis  of  these  latter.1 

We  may  now  conclude.  Philo  was  formed,  above  all,  in  the  school  of 
the  Old  Testament ;  he  had  learned  in  it,  through  all  the  facts  which  we 
have  pointed  out  above,  the  existence  of  a  being,  personal  or  impersonal, 
by  means  of  whom  God  acts  upon  the  world,  when  He  puts  Himself  in 
connection  with  it.  And  he  believed  that  he  could  philosophically  inter- 
pret the  idea  of  this  being,  through  explaining  it  by  means  of  the  Logos, 
or  divine  reason,  of  the  Greek  philosophers.  For  this  reason  he  calls  him 
sometimes  Logos  or  second  God  (SevTcpog  0eof)  when  he  speaks  as  a  disciple 

1  Schiirer,  Literatur-Zeitung,  1878,  No.  17. 


180  BOOK   III.      THE  ORIGIN. 

of  these  schools,  and  sometimes  Archangel,  High-priest,  Son,  First-born  Son, 
when  he  resumes  the  Jewish  language.  So  true  is  it  that  the  Porch  and 
the  Academy  furnished  him  the  key  of  his  Judaism,  that  in  one  instance 
he  even  goes  so  tar  as  to  say  :  "  the  immortal  ideas  (aOdvaroi  Xoyoi)  which 
we  [Jews]  call  angels." 

John,  on  his  side,  was  also  in  the  school  of  the  Old  Testament;  he  also 
learned  from  this  sacred  hook  the  existence  of  that  being,  sometimes  dis- 
tinct from  the  Lord,  sometimes  confounded  with  Him,  with  whom  God 
conversed  when  He  said:  " Let  us  make  man  in  our  image,"  who  conse- 
quently participated  in  the  creative  act,  who  communicates  life  to  all 
things,  but  who  has  especially  marked  with  His  luminous  impress  every 
human  soul,  who  finally  is  the  permanent  agent  in  the  theophanies  of 
the  Old  Testament.  John  is  so  penetrated  by  this  view,  that  in  the  per- 
son of  Adonai,  the  Lord,  who  calls  Isaiah  (chap,  vi.)  to  the  prophetic  min- 
istry, he  recognizes  the  same  divine  being  who,  at  a  later  time,  in  Jesus 
Christ  manifested  His  glory  in  a  human  life  (John  xii.  41) ; '  exactly  as 
St.  Paul  recognizes  the  divine  being,  manifested  in  Christ,  in  the  leader  of 
Israel  through  the  wilderness  (1  Cor.  x.  4),  and  as  the  author  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  finally,  attributes  to  the  Son  the  creation  and  preservation 
of  all  things,  as  well  as  the  sacrifice  of  purification  for  our  sins  (Heb.  i. 
1-3). 

But  here  is  the  difference  between  John  and  Philo  :  instead  of  going 
from  the  Old  Testament'  to  the  schools  of  Plato  and  the  Stoics,  John 
passed  to  that  of  Jesus.  And  when  he  beheld  in  Him  that  unique  glory, 
full  of  divine  grace  and  truth,  which  he  has  described  John  i.  14 — when  he 
heard  declarations  such  as  these:  "He  who  hath  seen  me,  hath  seen  the 
Father;"  "Thou  didst  love  me  before  the  foundation  of  the  world;" 
"  Before  Abraham  was,  I  am;"  he  comprehended  what  He  whom  he  had 
before  him  was,  and  without  difficulty  accomplished,  in  his  mind,  that 
fusion  between  the  eternal  agent  of  God  and  the  Christ,  which  had  not 
entered  into  the  mind  of  the  Alexandrian  philosopher.  Philo  is  the  Old 
Testament  explained  by  Greek  philosophy ;  John  is  the  Old  Testament 
completed  and  explained  by  Jesus  Christ.2 

As  for  the  term  Logos,  on  which  John  fixed  in  order  to  designate  the 
divine  being  whom  he  had  recognized  in  the  person  of  Christ,  it  was 
offered  to  him,  as.  we  have  seen,  by  the  Old  Testament ;  the  part  which 
the  Word  of  God  plays  in  that  book,  particularly  in  the  account  of  the 
creation,  was  sufficient  to  make  him  prefer  this  term  to  every  other. 
That  of  Son,  as  Gess  rightly  says,  only  expressed  the  personal  relation  be- 
tween God  and  the  divine  being  whom  John  wished  to  characterize.     The 


'"Isaiah  said  those  things  whon  he  saw  the  synthesis  of  this  Alexandrian  theology 

his  glory  and  spake  of  him  [Christ]."  with  the  Christian  tradition."    We  believe 

2  We  see  how  many  errors  are  ineluded  in  that  the  Alexandrian  theology  is  foreign  to 

the  opinion  of  Jean  Reville,  which  maybe  John's    teaching,    and    that   this    teaching, 

thus  stated:  "The  Alexandrian  theology  is  instead  of  resting  on  the  Christian  tradition, 

the  synthesis  of  Judaism  and  Greek  philoso-  is  a  personal  testimony  (John  i.  14;   1  John 

phy,  and  the  doctrine  of  John  is,  in  its  turn,  1. 1-4). 


THE  AUTHOR — OBJECTIONS.  181 

term  Word,  on  the  contrary,  expressed  His  double  relation,  on  one  side 
to  the  God  who  reveals  Himself  in  Him,  and  on  the  other  to  the  world 
to  which  He  manifests  Himself.  And  if  this  name  of  Word  was  already 
used  in  the  Jewish  schools  (as  seems  to  be  shown  by  the  paraphrases),  we 
may  so  much  more  easily  understand  how  it  may  have  been  the  first  one 
which  presented  itself  to  the  apostle's  mind.  It  is  remarkable  that  this 
title  is  found  as  a  designation  of  Christ  in  the  three  Johannean  writ- 
ings (Gosp.  i.  1 ;  1  Ep.  i.  1-3  ;  Apoc.  xix.  13),  and  in  these  three  writings 
alone.  It  is,  as  it  were,  an  indissoluble  bond  which  unites  them.  The 
fact  that  this  name  is  found  even  in  the  Apocalypse,  whose  author, 
assuredly,  is  not  liable  to  the  suspicion  of  Alexandrianism,  completes  the 
proof  that  its  source  is  Jewish,  and  by  no  means  Philonean.  Finally, 
being  established  at  Ephesus,  that  focus  of  religious  syncretism,  whither 
all  the  philosophical  doctrines  flowed  in  from  Persia,  from  Greece  and 
from  Egypt,  John  might  have  often  heard,  in  the  religious  and  philosoph- 
ical teachings  or  conversations,  the  term  Word  applied  to  the  manifested 
God.  When  he  inscribed  it  at  the  beginning  of  his  narrative,  therefore, 
it  was  as  if  he  had  said :  "  This  Logos,  respecting  whom  you  are  specula- 
ting, without  coming  to  the  real  knowledge  of  Him,  we  possess,  we  Chris- 
tians. We  have  seen  and  heard  Him  Himself,  and  He  it  is  whose  history 
we  are  about  to  relate  to  you." 1 

We  see,  consequently,  that  there  is  nothing  compromising  to  the  Johan- 
nean origin  of  the  fourth  Gospel  in  this  term  Logos,  to  which  criticism 
clings  with  tenacity,  and  which  it  uses  in  a  way  that  does  little  honor  to 
its  scientific  impartiality. 

IX.  After  having  done  justice  to  all  these  considerations,  Hase  avows 
himself  overpowered  by  a  ninth  and  last  one,  namely  this  :  Certain  inci- 
dents in  our  Gospel  have  a  legendary  stamp,  and  cannot  have  been  related 
by  an  eye-witness;  thus,  the  picture  of  John  the  Baptist  and  the  first  dis- 
ciples of  Jesus,  the  change  of  the  water  into  wine  and  the  multiplication 
of  the  loaves,  finally,  the  appearances  of  Jesus  after  He  rose  from  the  dead. 
Hase,  for  a  long  time,  believed  that  he  could  escape  the  force  of  this  con- 
sideration by  holding  that  John  was  not  present  when  the  facts  occurred 
which  gave  rise  to  these  legends.  He  now  acknowledges  that  this  was  a 
forced  expedient,  and  lays  down  his  arms.  The  reply  attempted  by  this 
theologian  was,  in  fact,  only  a  poor  subterfuge,  and  he  did  well  to  renounce 
it.  But  the  argument  before  which  the  veteran  of  Jena  gives  way,  is  of  no 
more  importance  for  that  reason ;  for,  however  Hase  may  think  he  can 
affirm  the  contrary,  it  simply  amounts  to  the  question  of  the  super- 
natural. 

X.  Baur  has  especially  insisted  upon  the  argument  derived  from  the 

1  Neander,  Apost.  Zeitalter,  ii.  p.  549:  "John  should  come  and  behold  Him  who  had  man- 
wished  to  lead  those  who  were  occupying  ifested    Himself    in    human     nature; to 

themselves  too  much  with  speculations  about  believe  and   test    by  experience,  as    John 

the  Logos,  from  their  idealism  to  a  religious  himself  testified  of  what  he  had  seen  and 

realism.  .  .  Instead  of  exploring  that  which  experienced." 
is  hidden  and  cannot  be  attained,  each  one 


182  BOOK   III.      THE   ORIGIN. 

Paschal  dispute  at  the  end  of  the  second  century,  but  from  a  different  point 
of  view  from  that  from  which  we  have  already  treated  this  question  (p. 
172).  He  claims  that  in  fixing  on  the  14th  of  Nisan  as  the  day  of  Christis 
death,  which  the  Synoptics  placed  on  the  35th,  the  author  of  the  fourth 
Gospel  sought  to  completely  put  an  end  to  the  Paschal  rite  of  the  churches 
of  Asia,  which  celebrated  the  Passover  on  the  14th  in  the  evening.  In 
fact,  he  displaces  thus  the  day  of  the  last  meal  of  Christ  and  carries  it  back 
to  the  evening  of  the  13th.  Now,  as  it  was  at  that  meal  that  Jesus  insti- 
tuted the  Passover,  the  author  creates  thereby  a  conflict  between  the  Gos- 
pel history  and  the  Asiatic  rite.  And  as  John  must  have  been  the  author 
of  that  rite,  he  cannot  have  composed  a  Gospel  designed  to  contest  it. 
This  argument  rests  on  the  idea  that  an  annual  commemorative  festival  is  , 
celebrated  on  the  day  on  which  that  feast  was  instituted,  and  not  the  day 
on  which  the  event  that  gave  rise  to  it  occurred.  Every  one  at  once  per- 
ceives the  falsity  of  this  view.  Besides,  we  have  already  shown  that  the 
narrative  of  John  respecting  this  point  is  historically  justified,  and  that  by 
the  Synoptics  themselves  (p.  78).  It  was  not  invented,  therefore,  in  the 
service  of  ecclesiastical  tactics.  The  rite  of  the  churches  of  Asia  probably 
depended,  not  on  any  date  whatever  in  the  history  of  the  Passion,  but  on 
the  day  of  the  Paschal  meal  in  the  Old  Covenant.  In  any  case,  if  the 
evangelist  had  desired  to  favor  the  Roman  Church,  which  celebrated  the 
Holy  Paschal  Supper  on  the  Sunday  of  the  resurrection,  and  to  combat  the 
Asiatic  rite  which  placed  it  on  the  evening  of  the  14th,  it  would  have  served 
no  purpose  to  place  the  institution  of  the  Holy  Supper  on  the  13th,  at  eve- 
ning;— to  reach  .this  end,  it  would  have  been  necessary  to  place  it  on  Sun- 
day morning,  and  to  make  it  the  first  act  of  Jesus  after  His  resurrection! 
(See,  for  further  details,  the  Commentary,  at  the  end  of  chap,  xix.) 

XI.  The  difference  of  matter  and  form  between  the  Gospel  and  the 
Apocalypse.  The  impossibility  of  referring  these  two  works  to  the  same 
author  had  formerly  become  a  kind  of  axiom  for  criticism.  Consequently, 
it  was  thought  that,  as  the  Apocalypse  has  in  its  favor  earlier  and  more 
positive  testimonies  than  the  Gospel,  it  was  just  to  give  it  the  preference 
and  to  reject  the  Johannean  origin  of  the  latter.  Thus  even  Baur,  Hilgen- 
feld  and  many  others  reason.  But  the  dilemma  on  which  this  conclusion 
rests  is  more  and  more  doubted,  at  present.  It  is  positively  set  aside  by  Hase, 
who  cites,  as  an  analogy,  the  difference  which  is  so  marked  between  the 
first  and  second  parts  of  Goethe's  Faust;  more  than  this,  he  thinks  that  the 
Apocalypse,  bearing  testimony  to  John's  residence  in  Asia,  rather  confirms 
thereby  the  tradition  relative  to  the  Gospel.1  Weizsiicker  cannot  help  ac- 
knowledging that,  notwithstanding  the  difference  of  author,  the  Apocalypse1 
is  "in  organic  connection  with  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel."2  Baur  himself 
has  borne  witness  to  the  complete  identity  of  the  two  works,  by  calling  the 
Johannean  Gospel "  a  spiritualized  Apocalypse."  If,  indeed,  it  can  be  proved 
that  it  is  necessary  to  interpret  spiritually  the  poetic  images  and  plastic 
forms'  of  the  Apocalypse,  wherein,  according  to  this  declaration  of  Baur 

» Geschichtc  Jesu,  pp.  29-31.  s  Untersuch.,  p.  295.  '■ 


THE   AUTHOR — OBJECTIONS.  183 

himself,  will  it  differ  from  the  Gospel?  Let  us  add  th.it  the  superiority 
which  is  attributed  to  the  testimony  of  tradition  in  relation  to  the  Apoca- 
lypse is  a  fiction,  which  does  not  become  more  true  for  being  continually 
repeated.1  Keim  and  Scholten  find  the  Apocalypse  as  insufficiently  at- 
tested as  the  Gospel,  and  reject  them  both. 

In  our  view,  a  choice  between  these  works  is  by  no  means  necessary, 
for  they  bear  distinctly  the  seal  of  tbeir  composition  by  one  and  the  same 
author. 

And  (1)  from  the  standpoint  of  afyfe,...  The  charge  made  against  the 
author  of  the  Apocalypse  of  transgressing  the  rules  of  grammar  or  of 
Greek  syntax,  is  one  of  those  mistakes  which  it  would  be  well  not  to  re- 
peat any  further.  The  preposition  and  from  is  construed  with  the  nomi- 
natives 6  uv  (who  is)  and  6  epx6/xEvor  (who  is  to  come).  A  barbarism  !  cries 
the  critic.  The  Gospel,  on  the  contrary,  is  written  in  correct  Greek. 
But  in  the  same  verse,  i.  4,  we  find  this  same  preposition  axo  from,  con- 
strued regularly  with  the  genitive  tuv  etvto,  nvev/udruv  (the  seven  sjnrits). 
And  the  same  is  the  case,  without  a  single  exception,  throughout  all  the 
rest  of  the  book !  The  construction  which  is  found  fault  with,  far  from 
being  a  schoolboy's  error,  is,  therefore,  the  bold  anomaly  of  a  master  who 
wished  to  picture,  by  the  immutability  of  the  word,  the  immutability  of 
the  subject  designated,  namely  God.  Numbers  of  appositions  in  the 
nominative  with  substantives  in  the  genitive  or  dative  are  charged. 
Comp.  ii.  20  (Tisch.)  iii.  12,  etc.  But  constantly  we  find  in  the  same  book 
appositions  in  their  regular  cases  (comp.  i.  10,  11 ;  iii.  10,  etc.).  In  the 
cases  of  the  opposite  kind,  the  author,  in  setting  grammar  at  defiance, 
has  evidently  desired  to  give  a  greater  independence  to  the  appositions! 
substantive  or  participle.  The  Gospel,  in  several  instances,  offers  us  anal- 
ogous irregularities  (comp.  vi.  39;  xvii.  2,  etc.). — It  is  remarked  further 
that  the  Gospel  uses  abstract  terms,  where  the  Apocalypse  is  disposed  to 
clothe  the  idea  with  a  figure.  The  one  will  say  life,  where  the  other 
says  living  fountains  of  waters  ;  the  one  light,  where  the  other  says  the  lamp 
of  the  holy  city ;  the  one  the  ivorld,  the  other  the  Gentiles  ;  the  one  death, 
the  other  the  second  death,  etc.,  etc.  It  is  sufficient,  as  a  complete  answer, 
to  call  to  mind,  with  Hase,  that  "  the  Apocalypse  employs  the  forms  of 
poetry  which  are.  sensible  (sinnlich)."  Let  us,  also,  not  forget  that  the 
Apocalypse  is  the  work  of  ecstasy  and  of  vision,  and  that  John  conceived 
it  kv  nvevfiari  (carried  away  in  the  spirit),  while  the  Gospel  is  the  calm  and 
deliberate  reproduction  of  simple  historical  recollections,  and  that  it  is 
written  hv  vol  (in  an  unexcited  state  of  mind).2 — The  Aramaisms  of  the 
Apocalypse  are  also  spoken  of,  which  form  a  contrast  with  the  Greek 
accuracy  of  the  Gospel.  Account  must  here  be  taken  of  a  decisive  fact. 
The  Apocalypse  is  written  under  the  constant  influence  of  the  prophetic 
pictures  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  coloring  of  whose  style,  as  a  conse- 

1  The  question  is  especially  of  the  testimony  tin,  from  that  of  Papias  and  from  that  of  the 

which  Justin  gives  to  the  Apocalypse;  now,  twenty-first  chapter. 

we  havo  seen  what  follows,  in  favor  of  the  *Comp.  respecting  this  difference,  ]   Cor. 

Gospel,  from  the  testimony  of  the  same  Jus-  xiv.  14, 15. 


184  BOOK   III.      THE   ORIGIN. 

qnence,  comes  out  in  its  own  style,  while  the  Gospel  simply  relates  the  events 
of  which  the  author  was  a  witness,  independently  of  every  foreign  model. 
Under  these  so  very  different  conditions  of  redaction,  as  the  Dutch  critic 
Niermeyer  justly  observes,1  the  entire  absence  of  difference  between  the 
two  writings  (on  the  supposition  that  they  are  both  by  the  same  author) 
would  "  afford  ground  for  legitimate  astonishment."  Winer  has  remarked 
how  the  style  of  Joseph  us  has  a  more  Aramaic  coloring  when  he  relates 
the  history  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  when  he  is  under  the  influence  of 
the  sacred  writings,  than  when  he  describes,  in  the  Jewish  War,  the  events 
which  happened  under  his  own  eyes. — But  with  all  this,  what  real  and 
fundamental  homogeneousness  of  style  between  these  two  works,  to 
the  view  of  every  one  who  does  not  stop  at  the  surface !  We  recommend, 
in  this  regard,  the  excellent  study  of  Niermeyer  (see  p.  23  f).  The  same 
favorite  expressions,  to  make  a  lie,  to  do  the  truth;  to  keep  the  command- 
ments, or  the  word;  to  hunger  and  thirst,  to  designate  the  deep  wants  of  the 
soul ;  the  term  Amen,  Amen,  which  so  often  begins  the  declarations  of 
Jesus  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  becoming  in  the  Apocalypse  the  personal  name 
of  Christ  Himself;  the  figure  of  the  Lamb,  applied  in  the  Gospel  (with  the 
term  a/av6r)  to  the  victim  burdened  with  the  sin  of  the  world,  and  used  in 
the  Apocalypse,  with  the  neuter  and  more  emphatic  term  apviov,  in  order 
to  designate  the  glorified  Lord  and  to  form  the  counterpart  of  the  term 
drjpiov,  the  Beast.  Finally,  the  name  Word  or  Word  of  God,  given  to 
Christ,  which  belongs  only  to  the  three  Johannean  writings  in  the  entire 
New  Testament,  and  unites  them,  as  it  were,  by  an  indissoluble  bond. 
To  these  analogies  of  expression  let  us  add  that  of  entire  descriptions ;  for 
example,  Apoc.  iii.  20,  where  the  author  describes  the  intimate  commu- 
nion of  Christ  with  the  believer :  "  Behold,  I  stand  at  the  door  and  knock  ; 
if  any  one  hear  my  voice  and  open  the  door,  I  will  come  in  to  him,  and 
will  sup  with  him,  and  he  with  me."  Let  this  expression  be  compared 
with  John  xiv.,  more  particularly  with  the  23d  verse  :  "  We  will  come  to 
him  and  make  our  abode  with  him."  Or  the  description  of  the  heavenly 
happiness  of  believers,  Apoc.  vii.  15-17 :  "  And  he  that  sitteth  on  the 
throne  shall  dwell  with  them.  They  shall  hunger  no  more,  and  they  shall 
thirst  no  more  .  .  .  .  ,  because  the  Lamb  who  is  in  the  midst  of  the 
throne  shall  feed  them  and  shall  lead  them  to  living  fountains  of  waters, 
and  God  shall  wipe  away  every  tear  from  their  eyes."  We  find  here 
brought  together  several  characteristic  expressions  of  the  Johannean  style : 
cKrjvovv  h  (to  dwell  in  a  tent),  comp.  John  i.  14;  nstvav,  difav  (to  hunger,  to 
thirst),  comp.  vi.  35 ;  Troi/uacveiv  (to  feed)  x.  1-16;  xxi.  16;  bdriyeiv  (to  guide) 
xvi.  13 ;  and  as  to  the  last  point,  depicting  God's  tenderness,  does  it  not 
recall  the  expression  of  Jesus,  xiv.  21 :  "  He  thatloveth  me  shall  be  loved 
of  my  Father?  " — A  final  analogy,  which  sets  the  seal  on  the  preceding, 
is  found  in  the  quotation  from  Zechariah  (xii.  10),  Apoc.  i.  7,  where  the 
author  corrects  the  translation  of  the  LXX.  precisely  as  the  author  of  the 
Gospel  does,  in  John  xix.  37. 

» Statement  by  Busken-Huct,  Revue  de  thcologie,  Sept.,  1856.  * 


THE  AUTHOR — OBJECTIONS.  185 

2.  With  regard  to  the  matter,  the  agreement  between  the  two  writings  is 
no  less  remarkable. 

It  has  been  sometimes  said  that  the  God  of  the  Apocalypse  is  a  God  of 
wrath,  while  the  God  of  the  Gospel  is  all  love.  It  seems  to  be  forgotten 
that  it  is  in  the  Gospel  that  this  threatening  is  found:  "He  that  obeyeth 
not  the  Son,  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him"  (iii.  36),  and  that  other 
threatening :  "  Ye  shall  seek  me,  but  ye  shall  die  in  your  sins  "  (viii.  24)  ; 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  that  it  is  the  author  of  the  Apocalypse  who  twice 
reproduces  (vii.  17  and  xxi.  4)  that  promise  of  Isaiah — the  most  tender  of 
all  which  the  Scriptures  contain:  "God  shall  wipe  every  tear  from  their 
eyes."  Love  rules  in  the  Gospel,  because  this  book  descrihes  the  first 
coming  of  the  Son  of  God,  as  Saviour  ;  severity  in  the  Apocalypse,  because 
it  is  the  representation  of  the  second  coming  of  the  Son,  as  Judge. 

The  Christology  of  the  Apocalypse  is  identical  with  that  of  the  Gospel. 
We  have  already  shown  (p.  113)  that  the  designation  of  Christ  as  //  aptf 
ttjs  KTiceuq  tov  Oeuv,  the  beginning  of  the  creation  of  God  (iii.  14),  must  not  be 
understood  in  the  sense  of  a  temporal  beginning,  as  if  Jesus  Himself 
formed  a  part  of  the  creation,  but  in  the  sense  in  which  eternity  may  be 
called  the  beginning,  that  is  to  say,  the  principle  of  the  creation.    This 
sense  follows  from  the  passages  in  which  the  term  beginning  {apx^i)  is  com- 
pleted by  the  term  end  (rMog)  and  in  which  the  parallel  epithet,  the  first,  is 
also  completed  by  the  last.     We  must  recall  to  mind  the  fact  that  these 
expressions  are  borrowed  from  Isaiah,  with  whom  they  are,  as  it  were,  the 
insignia  of  the  peculiar  glory  of  Jehovah.     If  Jesus  Himself  formed  part 
of  the  creation,  according  to  the  author  of  the  Apocalypse,  as  Hilgenfeld 
claims,  how  could  he  call  Him  6  fav,  the  living  one  (i.  18)?    This  word  re- 
minds one  of  the  expressions  of  the  Gospel,  i.  4:  "  In  him  was  life,"  and 
vi.  51 :  "I  am  the  living  bread,"  a  term  which,  in  the  context,  implies  the 
sense  of  life-giving.    The  homage  of  worship  from  all  creatures  is  addressed 
to  the  Lamb  at  the  same  time  as  to  the  Father  (v.  15) ;  a  fact  which  may  I 
fitly  be  compared  with  xxii.  9  :  "  Worship  God  (only)."     But,  at  the  same  | 
time,  the  Son  is  subordinate  to  the  Father.     As  for  the  revelation  "  which 
He  gives  to  His  servants,"  in  this  very  book,  it  is  "God  who  gave  it  to  ' 
Him  "  (i.  1).     In  the  Gospel,  Jesus  declares  also  that  it  is  "  the  Father  who  '. 
giveth  the  Son  to  have  life  in  Himself"  (v.  20),  and  that  "His  Father  is 
greater  than  He  "  (xiv.  28).    The  terms  Word  and  Son,  which  are  common  : 
to  the  two  works,  both  of  them  imply  this  double  notion  of  dependence 
and  community  of  nature. 

The  means  of  justification  before  God  are  absolutely  the  same  in  the 
two  works;  there  is  no  question  in  the  Apocalypse  either  of  circumcision, 
or  of  any  legal  work.  "  Salvation  "  descends  "  from  the  throne  of  God  and 
of  the  Lamb"  as  a  divine  gift  (vii.  10).  The  same  figure  is  applied  to  the 
river  of  living  Water  (xxii.  1).  It  is  "  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb  that  the  elect 
wash  their  robes"  (viii.  14);  it  is  "through  this  blood  that  they  gain  the 
victory  over  Satan  "  (xii.  11).  Justification  and  sanctification  are,  there- 
fore, the  fruit  of  faith  in  the  work  of  Christ.  If  the  keeping  of  the  com- 
mandments of  God  is  frequently  spoken  of,  the  case  is  exactly  the  same  in 


186  BOOK   in.      THE   ORIGIN. 

the  Gospel  (xiv.  21 ;  xv.  10)  and  in  the  first  epistle  (v.  2,  etc.).  And  it  is 
very  evident  that  this  obedience  is  that  which  springs  from  faith.  Critics 
especially  urge  the  reproach  addressed  to  the  bishop  of  Pergamos,  of  tol- 
erating persons  who,  "  after  the  .example  of  Balaam ,  teach  men  to  eat  meats 
sacrificed  to  idols  and  to  commit  fornication  "  (ii.  14).  The  teaching  thus 
made  the  subject  of  accusation  is  none  other,  it  is  said,  than  that  of  St. 
Paul  in  First  Corinthians  (viii.-x.).  Here,  therefore,  is  a  declaration  of 
war  made  against  Paulinism,  and  the  evident  indication  of  a  Judaizing 
tendency  ;  it  is  the  antipode  of  the  fourth  Gospel.  But  one  and  the  same 
thing  may  be  said  in  two  very  different  spirits.  Paul  in  1  Cor.  begins  by 
permitting,  in  the  name  of  monotheism  and  the  freedom  of  faith,  the 
eating  of  the  meats  sacrificed  to  idols  ;  the  Christian  should  not  be  afraid 
of  contracting  defilement  from  material  food ;  but  afterwards  he  restricts 
this  permission  in  two  ways  :  1.  The  exercise  of  this  right  is  subordinate 
to  the  duty  of  charity  towards  brethren  having  conscientious  scruples ; 
2.  It  must  never  be  carried  to  the  point  of  participation  in  the  sacred 
feasts  celebrated  in  the  heathen  sanctuaries,  because  such  an  act  implies 
a  close  union  with  idolatry  (x.  14-21),  and  because  in  such  circumstances 
the  believer  "who  thinks  that  he  stands"  may  easily  fall  (1  Cor.  x.  12). 
Evidently  he  means  by  this :  fall  into  impurity — that  vice  which  was  so 
prevalent  in  Corinth  and  against  which  he  had  just  put  the  members  of 
the  Church  on  their  guard,  in  chap.  vi.  Now  it  is  precisely  against  this 
second  manner  of  eating  the  sacrificial  meats  that  the  author  of  the  Apoc- 
alypse also  raises  his  voice,  as  is  shown  by  the  close  connection  which  is 
made  between  these  two  expressions :  to  eat  meats  sacrificed  to  idols  and  to 
commit  fornication.  What  temptation  to  this  latter  vice  could  have  re- 
sulted from  the  fact  of  eating  such  food  at  a  private  table,  either  that  of 
the  Christian  himself,  or  at  the  house  of  a  brother  who  had  invited  him  ! 
And  this  is  the  only  thing  which  Paul  authorizes  (1  Cor.  x.  25-27).  We 
know,  on  the  contrary,  that,  towards  the  end  of  the  first  century,  and  from 
the  beginnings  of  Gnosticism,  the  heretics  set  about  recommending  the 
eating  of  meats  sacrificed  to  idols,  precisely  in  the  sense  in  which  Paul 
had  prohibited  it.  They  sought  thereby  to  reconcile  Christianity  with 
Paganism.  Irenseus  says  (i.  G) :  "  They  eat  without  scruple  the  meats  which 
have  been  sacrificed  to  idols,  thinking  that  they  do  not  defile  themselves 
thereby,  and  whenever  there  is  among  the  heathen  a  festival  prepared  in 
honor  of  the  idols,  they  are  the  first  to  be  there."  Wecan  understand  the 
falls  which  resulted  from  this.  Irenaeus  also  immediately  adds,  "  that  these 
Gnostics  give  themselves  up  to  the  lusts  of  the  flesh  with  greediness;" 
and  when  the  Jew  Trypho  reproaches  Justin  with  the  fact  that  the  Chris- 
tians eat  sacrificial  meats,  the  latter  replies,  unhesitatingly,  that  "  it  is  only 
the  Valentinians  and  other  heretics  who  act  in  this  way."  Basilides 
taught,  according  to  the  report  of  Eusebius  (H.  E.,  iv.  7),  that,  in  time  of 
persecution,  one  might,  in  order  to  save  one's  life,  eat  sacrificial  meats  and 
deny  the  faith.  The  first  of  these  acts  was  only  the  outward  form  of  the 
second.  These  are  the  abominations  against  which  the  author  of  the 
Apocalypse  protests.    What  have  they  in  common  with  the  case  which  is 


THE  AUTHOR OBJECTIONS.  187 

authorized  by  Paul?  We  have  discussed  this  passage  at  considerable 
length,  because  it  is  one  of  the  principal  supports  on  which  the  opinion 
rests,  which  is  so  widely  extended  at  the  present  day,  as  to  the  Judaizing 
character  of  the  Apocalypse. 

It  has  been  maintained  that  when  the  author  puts  the  Church  of  Ephe- 
sus  on  its  guard  "  against  those  who  say  they  are  apostles  and  are  not,  and 
has  found  them  liars,"  he  means  to  designate  St.  Paul.  But  what !  in  a 
letter  addressed  to  a  Church  which  Paul  had  founded  during  a  residence 
of  three  years,  and  from  which  Christianity  had  spread  through  all  the 
countries  of  the  neighborhood,  a  man  dared  to  maintain  that  the  apostle- 
ship  of  this  man  was  an  untruth !  Was  it  not  in  that  region  of  Asia  Minor 
that  there  were  found  those  multitudes  of  converts  due  to  the  labor  of 
the  apostle,  whose  triumph  the  author  of  the  Apocalypse  celebrates  in 
chap.  vii.  and  elsewhere  ?  Luthardt  simply  says,  in  answer  to  such  an 
assertion :  "  He  who  proves  too  much  proves  nothing."  Volkmar  has 
made  another  discovery  :  the  false  prophet,  the  beast  with  the  horns  of  a 
lamb,  the  confederate  of  the  antichrist,  who  seeks  to  bring  the  whole 
world  under  the  power  of  the  latter,  is  again  St.  Paul ;  for  in  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans  (chap,  xiii.),  he  teaches  Christians  the  duty  of  submitting 
themselves  to  the  superior  powers,  which  is  equivalent  to  binding  them 
to  assume  the  mark  of  the  beast.  Is  not  this  a  poor  jest,  rather  than  a 
serious  argument  ?  The  way  of  submission  marked  out  by  Paul  is  that 
which  the  entire  Scriptures  teach  with  regard  to  earthly  powers.  It  was 
that  which  Jeremiah  marked  out  for  the  last  kings  of  Judah  towards  Neb- 
uchadnezzar. Jesus  knows  no  other:  "Put  up  thy  sword  into  the  sheath, 
for  he  that  smiteth  with  the  sword  shall  perish  by  the  sword."  The  author 
of  the  Apocalypse  himself  recommends  it  to  the  Christians  persecuted  by, 
the  antichrist,  for  he  sets  in  opposition  to  every  desire  for  active  resist- 
ance this  threatening :  "  If  any  one  leadeth  into  captivity,  into  captivity 
he  shall  go  :  if  any  one  slayeth  with  the  sword,  he  also  shall  be  killed  with 
the  sword.  Here  is  the  patience  and  faith  of  the  saints."  The  strength  of 
the  persecuted  Church  will  be,  as  Isaiah  already  said,  to  keep  itself  at  rest, 
relying  upon  God  alone.  The  Reformed  Church  in  France  has  carried 
this  line  of  conduct  even  to  heroism,  and,  when  it  has  for  a  time  departed 
from  it,  it  has  had  no  occasion  to  congratulate  itself. 

As  to  the  conception  of  the  Church,  it  is  absolutely  the  same  in  the  Apoc- 
alypse as  in  the  fourth  Gospel  and  with  St.  Paul ;  and  it  is  a  gross  error 
to  maintain,  as  Volkmar  does,  that  the  believing  Gentiles  are  only  toler- 
ated, in  this  book,  and  constitute  only  a  sort  of  plcbs  in  the  Holy  City.  As 
Hase  says  :  "  After  the  one  hundred  and  forty -four  thousand  who  are 
sealed  from  among  the  tribes  of  Israel,  John  sees  an  innumerable  multi- 
tude from  the  twelve  Gentiles,  of  every  nation,  of  every  tribe,  of  every 
tongue,  clothed  with  white  robes"  (chap.  vii.).  "They  are  before  the 
throne  of  God  and  serve  him  night  and  day  in  his  temple,"  and  "God 
dwells  with  them  .  .  .  and  He  wipes  away  every  tear  from  their  eyes" 
(vv.  15-17).  Is  this  the  reception  given  to  a  vile  plebs?  This  assertion  is  so 
entirely  false,  that  the  one  hundred  and  forty-four  thousand  Jews,  who  aro 


188  BOOK   III.      THE  ORIGIN". 

previously  spoken  of,  are  not  even  yet  believers.  Their  conversion  is  not 
related  until  chap.  xiv.  1  ff.  In  chap.  vii.  they  are  merely  sealed  (re- 
served) in  order  to  be  consecrated  afterwards.  But,  however  it  may  be 
with  this  last  point,  and  even  if  these  one  hundred  and  forty-four  thou- 
sand formed  the  elite  of  the  assembly  of  the  Church,  the  Apocalypse  in 
giving  them  this  place  would  be  in  agreement  with  St.  Paul,  who,  in  the 
eleventh  chapter  of  Romans,  compares  the  converted  Gentiles  to  wild 
branches  grafted  upon  the  patriarchal  root  in  the  place  of  the  Jews,  the 
natural  branches;  and  also  with  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  who,  in 
chap,  x.,  makes  the  sheep  taken  from  the  Israelitish  fold  the  centre  of  the 
Church  and  presents  the  sheep  called  from  other  nations  as  simply  grouped 
about  this  primitive  nucleus  (ver.  16).  The  divine  work  which  the  author 
of  the  Apocalypse  celebrates  from  the  beginning  to  the  end,  when  he  puts 
into  the  mouth  of  all  believers,  without  distinction,  the  song  of  the  Lamb  ; 
when  he  gives  to  them  all  the  titles  of  kings  and  priests  of  God  the  Father, 
which  Israel  had  borne  only  typically  ;  when  to  the  twelve  elders  repre- 
senting the  twelve  tribes  of  Israelitish  Christianity,  he  adds  twelve  others 
perfectly  equal  to  the  first,  and  representing,  together  with  them,  before 
the  throne  the  Christians  of  the  Gentile  world, — all  this  new  creation 
which  he  beholds  with  rapture  and  which  he  glorifies,  is  nothing  else 
than  the  work  of  St.  Paul.  And  yet  in  this  book,  St.  Paul  is  the  false  pro- 
phet in  the  service  of  the  antichrist ! 

But  do  not  the  author's  eschato logical  views  condemn  us  perchance? 
Even  Niermeyer  feels  himself  embarrassed  by  that  Jerusalem  of  the  end 
of  time,  which  seems  to  perpetuate  the  preponderance  of  Judaism  even 
in  the  perfected  state  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  ''  If,"  says  he,  "  the  earthly 
Jerusalem  could  be  removed  from  the  Apocalyptic  picture,  this  book 
would  be  spiritualized  throughout  by  this  fact  alone."  It  is  not  difficult  to 
satisfy  this  demand.  The  author  represents  (xxi.  1G)  the  wall  of  that 
future  Jerusalem  as  having  a  height  equal  to  its  length  and  its  breadth, 
and  as  forming,  consequently,  a  perfect  cube.  This  cube  is  of  twelve 
thousand  furlongs,  which  is  nearly  fifty  leagues,  in  each  dimension.  Can 
it  reasonably  be  believed  that  he  is  picturing  to  himself  a  real  city  of 
so  monstrous  a  shape  ?  But  this  image,  grotesque  if  Ave  take  it  in  a 
material  sense,  becomes  sublime  as  soon  as  it  is  spiritually  understood. 
The  Most  Holy  Place  in  the  tat>ernacle  and  in  the  temple  had  the  form 
of  a  perfect  cube,  while  the  Holy  Place  had  that  of  a  rectangle.  What, 
then,  does  the  author  mean  by  this  figure  ?  That  the  New  Jerusalem 
will  be  wholly  what  the  Most  Holy  Place  was  in  the  former  times :  the 
dwelling-place  of  the  Thrice  Holy  God.  It  is  the  realization  of  the  last 
prayer  of  Jesus :  "  That  they  may  be  one  in  us,  as  we  are  one ;  "  the  state 
which  Paul  sets  forth  in  1  Cor.  xv.  28:  "God  all  in  all."  And  if  any  one 
hesitates  to  believe  that  this  glorious  state  of  things  applies,  in  the  Apoca- 
lypse, to  other  believers  than  those  of  Jewish  origin,  let  him  read,  xxi.  2, 
3,  these  words :  "  I  saw  the  holy  city,  the  New  Jerusalem  coming  down 
out  of  heaven  from  God,  and  I  heard  a  great  voice  from  heaven  saying, 
Behold  the  tabernacle  of  God  is  among  men*    And  as  if  to  leave  no  doubt 


THE   AUTHOR — OBJECTIONS.  189 

respecting  the  sense  of  the  word  men,  the  author  adds :  "  And  they  [they 
who  were  not  his  people]  shall  be  his  peoples,  and  God  Himself  shall  be 
with  them,  their  God.''  In  speaking  of  the  final  Jerusalem,  Niermeyer 
simply  forgets  that  that  future  Jerusalem  is  by  no  means  a  restoration  of 
the  ancient  Jerusalem,  and  that  the  author  describes  it  as  a  new  Jerusalem 
coming  doivn  out  of  heaven  from  God.  It  is  the  Church  in  all  its  extent 
and  all  its  perfection,  comprehending  all  that  which,  throughout  the 
whole  of  humanity,  has  been  given  to  Christ.  We  find  here  the  widest 
universalism.  And  if  it  is  thus  with  the  holy  city  itself,  the  same  method 
of  spiritual  interpretation  must,  of  course,  be  extended  to  all  that  which 
constitutes  its  beauty  :  the  gates,  the  walls,  the  square,  the  river,  the  trees. 
And  all  these  images,  spiritually  understood,  lead  us  directly,  if  the 
Gospel  is  really  a  spiritualized  Apocalypse  (Baur),  to  this  result:  that 
the  Apocalypse  is  fundamentally  identical  with  the  Gospel. 

A  general  comparison  of  the  Apocalyptic  drama  with  the  narrative 
contained  in  our  Gospel  leads  us  also  to  hold  that  their  author  was  the  same. 
True,  the  contrary  is  affirmed.  It  is  said  that  the  Apocalypse  breathes 
the  most  intense  hatred  towards  the  Gentiles — it  is  by  a  Jewish  author ; 
the  Gospel  reserves  all  its  hatred  for  the  Jews — it  is  by  a  Gentile  author. 
It  is  further  said,  that  the  Apocalypse  moves  amidst  the  scenes  of  the 
last  times,  which  are  unknown  to  the  Gospel ;  the  latter,  on  the  contrary, 
treats  only  of  the  hostile  relation  of  Jesus  to  the  Jews  during  His  sojourn 
on  the  earth.  These  two  objections  fall  before  a  single  observation.  The 
work  of  Jesus  is  twofold.  In  the  first  place  it  concerned  the  Jews ;  then 
came  the  times  of  the  Gentiles  in  which  salvation  was  offered  to  these 
last.  The  Gospel  gives  an  account  of  the  first  of  these  relations,  the 
Apocalypse  treats  of  the  second ;  and  the  two  works  complete  each 
other,  as-  if  the  two  halves  of  one  and  the  same  whole,  which  might  have 
for  its  title :  The  substitution  of  the  kingdom  of  God  for  that  of  Satan 
throughout  the  whole  earth.  The  actors  in  the  two  dramas  are  also,  at 
the  foundation,  the  same.  They  are  these  three :  Christ,  faith,  unbelief 
In  the  Gospel:  the  Christ,  as  Christ  in  humiliation;  faith,  represented 
by  the  disciples ;  unbelief,  represented  by  the  Jews.  In  the  Apocalypse, 
the  Christ,  as  the  glorified  Lord;  faith,  represented  by  the  Bride,  or  the 
Church ;  unbelief,  by  the  Gentiles,  the  majority  of  whom  reject  the  call 
of  the  Gospel,  in  the  same  way  as  the  majority  of  the  Jews  had  rejected 
it  in  the  time  of  Jesus.  There  is,  therefore,  no  partiality  in  this  book. 
On  the  one  side,  believing  Gentiles,  an  innumerable  multitude,  whom  the 
author  with  rapture  beholds  triumphant  before  the  throne,  precisely  as, 
during  the  life  of  Jesus,  there  had  been  believing  Jews,  raised  into  the 
most  intimate  communion  with  Him.  On  the  other  side,  a  mass  of  unbe- 
lieving Gentiles  who  draw  upon  themselves,  more  and  more,  the  judgments 
of  the  glorified  Lord  (seals,  trumpets,  bowls),  precisely  as  the  mass  of  the 
Jews  had  been  hardened  and  infuriated  more  and  more  against  the  Lamb 
of  God  in  the  midst  of  them.  The  sole  difference  between  the  two 
dramas,  the  Evangelic  and  Apocalyptic — and  this  difference  appertains  to 
the  very  nature  of  things — is  that  in  the  former  the  Tassion  and  Resur- 


190  BOOK   III.      THE   OEIGIN. 

rection,  the  foundations  of  the  redemption  of  all,  are  related ;  in  the 
latter,  the  second  coming  of  Christ,  as  the  consummation  of  salvation  and 
judgment  for  all.  This  difference  is  one  more  bond  of  union  between  the 
two  works ;  for  thereby  the  Apocalypse  all  along  supposes  the  Gospel 
behind  itself,  so  to  speak,  and  the  Gospel,  the  Apocalypse  before  itself,  in 
some  sort;  and  thus  we  understand  from  what  source  comes  the  almost 
complete  absence  of  the  eschatological  element  in  the  Gospel.  The 
progress  and  phases  of  the  struggle,  there  with  the  Jews,  here  with  the 
Gentiles,  are  also  exactly  similar.  In  both  works  the  end  seems  near, 
even  from  the  beginning.  But,  nevertheless,  it  is  found  to  be  deferred ;  we 
expect  it  in  the  Apocalypse  after  the  sixth  seal,  after  the  sixth  trumpet ; 
nevertheless,  it  is  again  postponed,  as  in  the  Gospel  where  John  repeats 
several  times  the  phrase :  "  But  his  hour  was  not  yet  come."  The 
denouement,  also,  is  fundamentally  the  same,  though  under  two  different 
forms :  outward  victory  of  Satan  over  the  kingdom  of  God :  in  the 
Gospel,  by  the  murder  of  Jesus  ;  in  the  Apocalypse,  by  the  extermination 
of  the  Church  under  the  Antichrist;  but  in  both  also,  victory,  at  first 
spiritual,  then  soon  afterwards  external,  of  the  champion  of  the  cause  of 
God ;  there,  through  the  resurrection  of  Christ ;  here,  through  the  glori- 
fication of  the  Church.  We  see  that  the  two  subjects  only  are  different : 
on  one  side,  the  Christ  having  come,  on  the  other,  the  Christ  coming.  But, 
nevertheless,  the  one  of  the  two  works  seems  to  be  made  in  imitation  of 
the  other,  both  in  relation  to  the  part  of  the  actors  and  the  progress  of  the 
action. 

There  is  only  one  way  by  which  these  two  works  can  be  successfully 
placed  in  contradiction  to  each  other:  it  is,  as  Luthardt  says,  to  material- 
ize the  Apocalypse  unduly,  and  unduly  to  spiritualize  the  Gospel.  By 
this  manoeuvre  the  common  crowd  may  be  dazzled ;  but  this  is  no  longer 
science,  it  is  fiction.  The  two  works  exist ;  and,  sooner  or  later,  the  truth 
recovers  its  rights. 

If  the  results  of  our  study  are  well  founded,  all  the  external  proofs  in 
favor  of  the  Johannean  origin  of  the  Apocalypse,  to  which  Baur,  Hilgen- 
feld  and  Volkmar  attach  so  high  a  value,  become  so  many  confirmations 
of  the  Johannean  origin  of  the  Gospel. 

XII.  There  is  an  objection  which  seems  to  have  produced  on  the  minds 
of  our  French  critics,  such  as  Renan  and  Sabatier,  the  decisive  impres- 
sion. John  is  called  in  the  fourth  Gospel  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved  : 
this  is  a  marked  superiority  which  is  ascribed  to  him  as  related  to  his 
fellow  apostles.  This  is  not  all ;  he  is  constantly  exalted  in  such  a  way 
as  to  become  fully  the  equal  of  Peter  or  even  to  surpass  him,  not  only  in 
agility,  but  also  in  intelligence  and  in  readiness  of  faith.  This  spirit  of 
jealousy  and  mean  rivalry  cannot  have  been  the  spirit  of  John  himself: 
it  must  be  acknowledged  that  the  redaction  of  our  Gospel,  at  least,  is  due 
to  a  disciple  of  this  apostle,  who  wished  at  any  cost  to  exalt  the  person 
and  the  role  of  the  venerated  master  whose  narratives  and  lessons  he  had 
gathered  together.  We  find  ourselves  here  evidently  in  the  presence  of  a 
tendency-process.    There  are  facts  related ;  with  what  purpose  are  they 


THE   AUTHOR — OBJECTIONS.  191 

related  ?  One  answers :  because  they  happened  in  this  way ,  the  other 
searches  after  secret  intentions  and  soon  discovers  them ;  he  attributes 
the  facts  to  the  imagination  of  the  narrator  as  being  moved  by  some  par- 
ticular view.  It  is  a  serious  thing  to  found  conclusions,  which  may  have 
decisive  consequences  for  the  Church,  on  such  methods  of  interpretation. 
In  this  particular  case,  it  happens  that  the  supposed  intention  is  in  mani- 
fest contradiction  to  a  very  large  number  of  facts.  In  chap.  i.  43,  Peter, 
it  is  true,  only  comes  to  Jesus  as  the  third  one.  But  if  it  were  to  exalt 
John  at  the  expense  of  that  disciple,  the  author,  who  does  not  trouble 
himself  with  the  history,  should  have  assigned  to  John  himself  the  part 
of  the  one  who  introduced  Peter  to  Jesus.  This  he  does  not  do ;  he  as- 
cribes this  honor  to  Andrew,  Peter's  own  brother — by  this  expression  he 
explains  this  part  played  by  him,  and  assigns  the  cause  of  it  historically. 
As  for  John,  he  is  not  directly  designated  in  this  scene,  either  by  his 
name  or  by  any  paraphrase  whatever.  Not  only  this ;  but  in  ver.  41, 
even  before  Andrew  brings  Peter,  when  he  is  introduced  for  the  first  time 
on  the  scene,  he  is  already  designated  as  the  brother  of  Simon  Peter, — of 
that  Peter  who  has  not  yet  appeared,  and  who  is  thus  presented,  from  the 
beginning,  as  the  principal  personage  of  the  whole  evangelical  history  by 
the  side  of  Jesus.  Finally,  as  if  all  this  were  not  yet  sufficient,  in  the 
view  of  the  author,  suitably  to  exalt  the  person  and  part  of  Peter,  Jesus, 
at  the  first  sight,  discerns  in  him  His  principal  auxiliary,  and  marks 
him  by  an  honorable  name,  while  he  does  nothing  of  the  kind  with  re- 
gard to  the  four  or  five  other  disciples  who  were  called  at  the  same  time. 
And  yet  in  this  scene  it  is  that  the  critics  are  able  to  discover  the  inten- 
tion of  disparaging  Peter  or  exalting  John  !  Chap.  vi.  places  us  again  in 
the  midst  of  the  apostolic  circle.  Who  plays  a  part  in  this  scene  of 
friendship  ?  It  is  Philip,  it  is  Andrew,  who  is  again  designated  as  the  bro- 
ther of  Simon  Peter  (vv.  5,  8).  Then,  at  the  end  of  the  whole  narrative, 
when,  in  presence  of  the  defection  of  nearly  all  the  Galilean  disciples, 
one  of  the  apostles  begins  to  speak  in  reply  to  the  question  of  Jesus :  "Will 
ye  also  go  away?  "  who  is  the  one  to  whom  the  evangelist  gives  the  post 
of  honor,  and  who  proclaims  in  the  name  of  all  his  immovable  faith  in 
the  Messiahship  of  Jesus?  Is  it  John?  Is  it  some  little  known  disciple 
whose  rivalry  would  be  little  dangerous  to  this  apostle?  It  is  Peter  him- 
self, he  whom  our  evangelist  wishes  to  disparage!  At  the  last  supper, 
Peter  beckons  to  John,  who  is  seated  next  to  Jesus,  to  request  him  to  make 
inquiry  of  the  Master.  But  if  the  thing  really  happened  in  this  way, 
what  conclusion  is  to  be  drawn  from  it  ?  And  who  would  be  able  seriously 
to  affirm  the  opposite ?  Is  there  here  an  impossibility?  Does  not  the 
following  story  actually  prove,  by  an  insignificant  circumstance,  that 
Peter  was  not  at  Jesus'  side  (vv.  5,  6)  ?  Finally,  in  the  same  passage,  docs 
not  the  evangelist  attribute  to  Peter  an  expression  in  which  all  his  devo- 
tion, all  his  faith,  breaks  forth ;  "  Not  only  my  feet,  Lord,  but  also  my 
hands  and  my  head!  "  (xiii.  9).  The  conversations  which  follow  the  sup- 
per presented  to  the  evangelist  an  admirable  occasion  for  placing  upon 
the  scene  his  favorite  disciple,  the  one  whom  Jesus  loved.    Questions  of 


192  BOOK   III.      THE   OlilGIN. 

Thomas,  of  Philip,  of  Judas  are  spoken  of;  but  not  the  least  allusion  is 
made  to  the  presence  of  this  disciple.  Peter's  exclamation  of  devotion  : 
"  I  will  lay  down  my  life  fur  thy  sake,"  is  recalled  to  mind  ;  can  this  be  a 
piece  of  Machiavellism,  for  the  purpose  of  more  strikingly  pointing  out 
his  presumption  and  afterwards  making  more  prominent  his  denial  ?  But 
as  to  this  fall  of  Peter,  John  is  precisely  the  one  who  relates  it  in  the 
mildest  way.  No  oath,  no  curse  in  Peter's  mouth ;  this  simple  word — He 
said.  Peter  is  introduced  into  the  High-Priest's  house  by  another  disciple, 
who  was  an  acquaintance  of  that  personage ;  but  nothing  tells  us  that 
this  disciple  was  John.  And  even  if  it  were  John,  it  would  be  a  scanty 
honor,  in  a  work  whose  tendency  is  said  to  be  so  strongly  anti-Jewish,  to 
have  been  in  relation  with  the  spiritual  head  of  the  nation.  In  Geth- 
semane,  it  is  Peter  who,  in  our  Gospel,  smites  with  the  sword.  When 
judged  in  relation  to  the  thought  of  Jesus,  this  act  is  a  fault,  no  doubt ; 
but  in  contrast  with  the  cowardice  "of  the  rest  of  the  disciples,  all  of  whom 
flee,  it  is  assuredly  an  honor.  Peter  is  not  afraid  to  put  into  practice  the 
profession  of  devotion  which  he  had  made.  On  the  morning  of  the  resur- 
rection, when  the  two  disciples  run  to  the  tomb,  John  reaches  it  most 
quickly,  and  this  is  said  to  be  one  of  the  deliberate  claims  on  behalf  of  this 
apostle  of  superiority  to  his  colleague.  .  .  .  Do  the  critics  dare  to  write 
such  puerilities !  If  it  is  so,  let  them  abstain,  at  least,  from  calling  such 
a  work,  with  Hilgcnfeld,  "  the  Gospel  with  an  eagle's  flight !  "  Immedi- 
ately afterwards,  from  the  mere  sight  of  the  order  which  reigns  in  the 
sepulchre,  John  reaches  the  belief  in  the  resurrection  (xx.  8),  while  it  is 
not  said  that  this  was  the  case  with  Peter.  Here  we  have  what  seems  a 
little  more  suspicious.  But  precisely  here  is  one  of  the  most  decidedly 
autobiographical  features  of  the  fourth  Gospel.  The  question  is  of  the 
most  internal  fact,  that  of  faith, — and  John  simply  tells  us  how  this  fact 
was  accomplished  in  himself.  Could  he  tell  so  exactly  what  took  place  in 
his  colleague  ? — whether  the  light  came  into  his  heart,  also,  at  that  moment 
and  in  that  way  f  Perhaps  he  was  always  himself  ignorant  of  it.  But  as 
Paul  and  Luke,  both  of  them,  speak  to  us  of  an  appearance  of  Jesus  after 
He  rose,  which  was  granted  to  Peter  on  that  same  day,  this  circumstance 
renders  it  probable  that  that  apostle  remained  near  the  tomb  with  a  con- 
fused presentiment,  which  was  only  transformed  into  real  faith  by  means 
of  that  appearance.  Let  us  remark,  in  passing,  that  no  special  appear- 
ance accorded  to  John  is  mentioned.  There  remains  the  scene  of  the 
twenty-first  chapter.  If  the  writer  truly  desired  to  establish  a  parallel  be- 
tween the  two  apostles,  it  must  be  acknowledged  that  the  contrast  is 
altogether  in  favor  of  Peter.  John,  it  is  true,  discerns  the  Lord  from  the 
time  when  they  were  on  the  boat;  but  he  does  not  stir  from  the  place, 
while  Peter  immediately  leaps  into  the  water.  John  docs  not  play  the 
least  part  in  the  conversation  which  follows  the  meal ;  Peter  is  the  sole 
object  of  the  Lord's  attention.  Not  only  does  Jesus  reinstate  him  as  an 
apostle ;  but  He  expressly  entrusts  to  him  the  direction  of  the  Church,  and 
even  that  of  the  apostolate :  "  Feed  my  lambs !  Lead  my  sheep  !"  And 
as  the  crown  of  his  ministry,  He  promises  him  the  honor  of  a  bloody 


THE   AUTHOR — OBJECTIONS.  193 

martyrdom.  After  this,  it  is  he,  and  he  only,  whom  lie  invites  to  follow 
Him,  in  order  to  receive,  in  a  confidential  conversation,  the  communica- 
tions which  He  has  still  to  make  to  him.  The  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved 
allows  himself,  without  having  been  summoned,  to  walk  modestly  behind 
them ;  it  is  Peter  himself  who  puts  him  on  the  scene,  by  means  of  the 
question  which  he  addresses  somewhat  indiscreetly  to  the  Lord  with  re- 
gard to  him.  But,  it  is  said,  the  superiority  of  John  reappears  even  here ; 
for  the  promise  which  is  made  to  him,  that  he  should  not  die,  eclipses  even 
that  of  martyrdom  which  had  just  been  made  to  Peter.  Let  it  be  so,  if 
one  will ;  only  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  following  explanation  of  the 
evangelist,  in  that  case,  ought  not  immediately  to  invalidate  the  pretended 
promise  !  What  a  contrast  between  those  two  expressions,  the  one  rela- 
tive to  John  :  "  Now  Jesus  did  not  say,  that  he  should  not  die ;"  the  other 
relative  to  Peter  :  "  Now  he  said  this  concerning  the  death  by  which  Peter 
should  glorify  God." 

There  remains,  in  reality,  only  one  expression  that  can  be  used  to  the 
advantage  of  the  objection  against  which  we  are  contending;  it  is  the 
designation  :  The  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved.  Weisse  was  the  first,  I  believe, 
who  was  shocked  at  this  expression,  and  saw  in  it  a  repulsive  vainglory. 
Sabatier  thinks  that,  if  John  had  written  it  himself,  "  it  would  be  difficult 
to  place  humility  among  his  virtues."  How  much  more  delicate  tact  and 
more  just  a  judgment  does  Hase  show !  He  says  :  "  Weisse  did  not  com- 
prehend this  joyous  pride  of  being  in  all  humility  the  object  of  the  most 
unmerited  love."  Among  all  the  rays  of  the  glory  full  of  grace  and  truth, 
which  the  Word  made  flesh  had  displayed  here  below,  there  was  one 
which  had  fallen  upon  John,  and  which  he  must  reproduce  in  his  work : 
the  Son  of  God  had  carried  condescension  even  to  the  point  of  having  a  • 
friend.  To  recall  to  mind  so  sweet  a  remembrance  was  not  pride  :  it  wras 
humble  gratitude.  To  disguise  his  own  name  under  this  paraphrase  was 
not  to  glorify  the  man ;  it  was  to  exalt  the  tenderness  of  Him  who  had 
deigned  to  stoop  so  low.  He  knew  himself  no  longer  except  as  the 
pardoned  believer  knows  himself — as  the  object  of  the  most  marvelous 
love.     It  is  thus  that  Paul  speaks  of  himself  in  2  Cor.  xii.  2-5. 

XIII.  We  have  long  since  expressed  the  conviction  that  the  position  of 
Reuss  with  regard  to  the  fourth  Gospel  is  untenable.  To  admit  the  apos- 
tolic origin  of  this  work,  and  at  the  same  time  to  regard  the  discourses 
which  are  contained  in  it  as  together  forming  a  treatise  of  mystical  theol- 
ogy, which  the  author,  of  his  own  will,  has  put  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus — 
there  is  here  an  evident  moral  impossibility.  Reuss  was  obliged  to  seek 
the  means  of  extricating  himself  from  this  contradiction,  and  he  has 
recently  discovered  it.  It  is  the  passage  xix.  35.1  Following  the  example 
of  Weisse,  Schweizer,  Keim,  and  Weizsacker,  he  thinks  that  he  sees  in  this 
passage  the  perfectly  clear  distinction,  established  by  the  author  of  the 
Gospel  himself,  between  his  own  person  and  that  of  the  Apostle  John,  who 
orally  furnished  him  the  authentic  materials  of  his  narrative.    Let  us 

1  Theologic   johannique,  p.  103. 
13 


194  BOOK   Iir.      THE   ORIGIN. 

study  this  text  more  closely.  It  is  composed  of  three  propositions :  "And 
he  that  hath  seen,  hath  borne  witness ;  and  his  witness  is  true ;  and  he 
knoweth  that  he  saith  true,  that  ye  may  believe."  Until  now,  it  had  been 
thought  that  it  was  the  witness  himself  who  spoke  here.  1.  He  declares 
that  his  testimony  respecting  the  fact  related  (the  simultaneous  accom- 
plishment of  the  two  prophecies  by  the  thrust  of  the  lance,  apparently 
accidental,  of  the  Roman  soldier)  is  now  given  (the  perfect  fiefiaprvpT/Ke)  :  it 
is  a  thing  done,  done  by  the  story  itself;  comp.  i.  34;  2.  He  attests  the 
truth  of  this  testimony ;  3.  He  solemnly  affirms  the  deep  sense  which  he 
bears  within  himself  of  the  reality  of  the  fact  related — and  this,  to  the  end 
that  the  readers  (you)  may  fully  believe  it. 

In  this  third  clause  the  author,  in  speaking  of  the  witness,  uses  the  pro- 
noun eKEtvog,  that  one,  and  many  find  in  this  word  the  proof  that  he  speaks 
of  the  witness  as  of  a  different  person  from  himself  and  one  who  can  be  no 
other  than  the  apostle.  But,  first,  the  author  may  with  perfect  propriety 
speak  of  himself  in  the  third  person,  as  Paul  does  in  2  Cor.  xii.  2-5,  or  as 
Jesus  Himself  does,  when  He  designates  Himself  habitually  under  the 
name  Son  of  man,  and  consequently  he  may  employ  the  pronoun  of  the 
third  person  in  all  its  forms.  The  reason  why  he  chooses  here  the  pro- 
noun EKelvog,  that  one,  is  because  this  word  has  a  peculiar  and  constant 
signification  in  the  fourth  Gospel.  It  designates,  in  this  book,  a  being  who 
exclusively  possesses  a  certain  character,  a  certain  function ;  consequently, 
not  a  person  remote  in  contrast  with  another  who  is  nearer,  but  a  single 
person  in  contrast  with  every  other ;  thus  i.  18  :  "  No  one  hath  seen  God  at 
any  time  .  .  . ;  the  only-begotten  Son,  he  it  is,  (sKelvog),  who  hath  declared 
him;"  or  xii.  48:  "My  word  .  .  .,  it,  it  alone  (eiceivog),  shall  judge  him;" 
comp.  v.  39  :  "  The  Scriptures  .  .  .,  they  are  they  (ekbIvoi)  which  .  .  . ;"  xvi. 
14 :  "  The  Spirit  .  .  .  he  (kneivoq)  shall  glorify  me,"  etc.,  etc.  Jesus,  also, 
in  speaking  of  Himself,  designates  Himself  by  this  pronoun ;  comp.  ix. 
37  :  "Thou  hast  seen  him  (the  Son  of  God)  and  he  that  speaketh  unto  thee 
is  he  (kneivog)."1  It  is  exactly  the  same  with  xix.  35.  He  designates  Him- 
self by  this  pronoun  as  the  one  who,  having  been  the  only  witness  of  the 
fact  among  the  apostles,  can  alone  attest  it  with  the  certainty  of  an  eye- 
witnessing.  There  exists,  therefore,  no  well  founded  logical  or  grammatical 
objection  against  the  most  generally  admitted  sense  of  the  passage. 

See  now  the  sense  which  the  before-mentioned  writers  endeavor  to  give 
to  it. 

1st  proposition  :  The  redactor  of  the  Gospel  declares  that  it  is  the  tvitness 
(the  apostle)  who  has  informed  him  concerning  the  circumstance  which 
he  has  just  related.  This  meaning  is  not  impossible,  although  we 
might  be  surprised  to  see  suddenly  appearing  here  the  distinction 
between  these  two  personages,  of  which  the  narrative  does  not,  up  to  this 
point,  offer  the  least  trace. 

2d  proposition :  The  writer  attests  the  truth  of  the  story  which  he  has 

1Reuss  objects  that  in  the  passage  ix.  37,  clause.  What  matters  this?  In  both  cases 
the  pronoun  ixelvos  designates  the  predicate,  it  is  still  the  same  person,  who  is  speaking, 
while,  in  xix.  35,  it  refers  to  the  subject  of  the       who  designates  himself  by  this  pronoun. 


THE   AUTHOR — OBJECTIONS.  195 

from  the  lips  of  the  witness.  This  is  unnatural,  for  it  would  rather  belong 
to  the  witness  to  attest  the  truth  of  the  fact  related  by  the  evangelist.  An 
unknown  and  anonymous  redactor,  presenting  himself  as  guarantee  for 
the  story  of  the  witness,  and  of  a  witness  who  is  an  apostle !  This  would 
be  strange  enough.  Whence  would  he  derive  this  right  and  this 
authority  ? 

3d  proposition  :  The  redactor  attests  the  deep  sense  which  the  witness 
bears  within  himself  of  the  reality  of  the  fact  related.  "  fie  knoweth  (the 
apostle-witness)  that  he  saith  true."  This  becomes  altogether  unintelli- 
gible; for  how  can  a  man  testify  of  that  which  takes  place  in  the  inner 
consciousness  of  another  individual  ?  We  might  understand  the  redactor's 
saying,  "  And  I  know  that  he  saith  true."  That  would  mean  :  Such  an 
one  as  I  know  him  to  be, — I  have  the  certainty  that  he  cannot  speak 
falsely.  But  with  the  form,  "  he  knows  (he)  that  he  says  true,"  the  declara- 
tion has  no  meaning.  Finally,  the  redactor  adds  :  "  to  the  end  that  ye 
may  believe."  If  it  is  John  who  says  this,  to  indicate  the  purpose  of  the 
story  which  he  has  just  committed  to  writing,  we  understand  what  he 
means :  "  I,  the  witness,  have  the  inward  consciousness  that  what  I  relate 
to  you  is  true,  to  the  end  that  you  also  (who  read)  may  believe  (as  well  as  I 
who  have  seen)."  His  testimony  is  to  become  for  those  who  read,  what 
the  sight  itself  has  been  for  him.  But  if  the  matter,  on  the  other  hand,  is 
of  the  oral  narrative  which  the  apostle  gave  to  the  author  a  long  time 
before,  this  statement  has  no  longer  any  meaning ;  for  there  is  no  direct 
connection  between  such  a  testimony  and  the  readers  of  the  present 
work  ;  the  words  "  to  the  end  that  you  may  believe  "  have  no  longer  any 
justification. 

Finally,  we  must  notice  the  two  verbs  in  the  present  tense :  "  He 
knows "  and  "  he  says  true.''  What  do  they  prove?  That,  at  the  moment 
when  these  lines  were  written,  the  witness  of  the  facts  was  still  living. 
And  in  that  case,  what  is  gained  by  substituting  for  him,  as  a  redactor, 
one  of  his  disciples  ?  The  Gospel  remains  nevertheless,  a  narrative 
composed  under  the  eyes  and  with  the  approbation  of  John  himself.1 

There  is,  moreover,  another  passage  which  absolutely  condemns  this 
sense  given  to  xix.  35  by  Reuss  and  by  many  others;  it  is  the  analogous 
declaration  of  xxi.  24.  Here  men,  in  a  position  which  was  recognized  by 
the  Church  and  respected,  expressly  affirm  that  which  these  critics  deny 
on  the  foundation  of  xix.  35,  to  wit,  the  identity  of  the  evangelist-redactor 
with  the  apostle  witness  :  "  This  disciple  (the  one  whom  Jesus  loved)  is  he 
who  testifieth  (6  fiaprvpuv)  of  these  things  and  who  wrote  them  (6  ypa\jjac)t  and 
we  know  that  his  testimony  is  true."  Reuss  claims,  it  is  true,  that  these 
men  fell  into  an  error,  and  that,  a  certain  time  after  John's  death,  they, 

1  Reuss,  indeed,  understands  this  serious  write  instead  of  olSev  he  knoics, r/Sei  he  knew  (/>« 

difficulty  and  tries  to  find  a  way  of  removing  knew  when  ho  was  alive);  and  does  not  the 

it.     He  says  that,  if  the  author  has  said  :  He  following  verb  also,  put  in  the  present  tense  : 

knows,  it  is  because  the  Greek  language  did  "  that  fie  saith  true,"  confute  such  a  puerile 

not  offer  him  any  special  term  for  saying:  He  evasion  ? 
knew.    But  it  was  sufficient  for  the  author  to 


196  BOOK   III.      THE   ORIGIN. 

in  good  faith,  confounded  the  apostle  with  the  redactor.  But  these  attes- 
tors, who  had  the  power  to  provide  the  Gospel  with  a  postscript  which  is  not 
wanting  in  any  manuscript  or  in  any  version,  must  have  taken  an  active 
part  in  the  publication  of  the  work ;  they  must,  consequently,  have  been 
the  first  depositaries  of  it.  Under  these  conditions,  how  could  an  error  on 
their  part  be  possible  ?  Then,  in  order  to  their  expressing  themselves  as 
they  do,  they  must  never  have  read  the  book  which  they  themselves 
were  publishing,  at  least  the  passage  xix.  35,  since,  according  to  Reuss, 
the  author  declares,  in  the  statement  there  made,  precisely  the  opposite 
of  what  they  solemnly  affirm.  Finally,  when  these  two  passages  are 
compared,  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  the  attestors  of  chap.  xxi.  say : 
We  know,  and  not  he  knows,  as  the  one  who  speaks  in  chap.  xix.  says. 
By  the  first  person  plural  they  distinguish  themselves  as  clearly  from  the 
witness-apostle,  as  by  the  third  person  singular,  he  knoivs,  the  redactor  of 
xix.  35  identifies  himself  with  this  -witness.  How,  then,  can  Reuss  say : 
"  The  sentence  of  xxi.  24  recurs  in  another  place  in  the  body  of  the 
Gospel ;  the  analogy  is  patent."  Yes,  but  the  difference  is  none  the  less 
patent.1 

Hilgenfeld  has  clearly  perceived  that  it  is  impossible  to  find  in  xix.  35 
the  distinction,  intentionally  made  by  the  writer,  between  himself  and  the 
witness.  He  admits,  therefore,  that  the  author,  after  having  desired  to  pass 
himself  off,  throughout  the  whole  work,  as  the  Apostle  John,  forgot  him- 
self for  a  moment  in  the  passage  xix.  S*5,  and  that  he  inadvertently  drops 
his  disguise.  There  remains,  in  fact,  only  this  expedient.  But  is  it  ad- 
missible? The  reader  will  judge.  In  any  case,  if  it  is  so,  we  must  give 
up  speaking  of  the  supreme  ability  of  an  author  to  whom  it  is  believed 
that  such  an  oversight  can  be  ascribed  ! 

XIV.  Will  it  be  necessary  to  stop  at  a  last  objection,  to  which  some 
critics  seem  to  attach  a  certain  importance  ?  How,  it  is  said,  could  a  man 
have  regarded  Jesus  as  a  divine  being,  after  having  lived  on  familiar  terms 
with  Him  for  three  years?  But  this  conviction  formed  itself  in  him  only 
gradually.  And  precisely  this  familiar  acquaintance  of  every  day  took 
away  from  it  whatever  overpowering  element  it  might  have  had  for  dog- 
matic reflection.  The  Apocalypse,  that  work  which,  in  the  so-called  crit- 
ical school,  is  generally  ascribed  to  the  apostle,  raises  exactly  the  same 
problem.  Jesus  is.  there  represented  as  the  first  and  the  last ;  He  is  called 
the  Holy  One  and  the  True,  just  as  Isaiah  calls  Jehovah;  and  yet  it  is  as- 
cribed to  the  apostle.  The  recognition  of  the  Messianic  dignity  of  Jesus 
was  a  first  step,  which  rendered  the  transition  easier  to  the  recognition  of 
His  divinity. 

Having  reached  the  end  of  this  long  review  of  all  the  objections  raised 
by  modern  criticism  against  the  unanimous  tradition  of  the  Church,  we 
may  be  permitted  to  bring  forward  a  curious  phenomenon  which  is  not 
without  psychological  importance  in  the  estimate  of  this  discussion.     Is  it 

lrrhat  we  may  not  prolong  this  discus-  what  we  have  to  say  respecting  the  beginning 
eion,  let  us  defer  until  the  following  section       of  the  first  Epistle  of  John  (1  John  i.  1-4).     , 


THE   AUTHOR — THE   INTERNAL   EVIDENCE.  197 

not  surprising  that  every  .adversary  of  the  authenticity  seems  to  be  espe- 
cially impressed  by  some  one  among  these  fourteen  objections,  which 
makes  only  a  feeble  impression  on  the  rest  of  the  critics,  and  in  compar- 
ison with  which  he  himself  attributes  to  all  the  others  only  a  slight  im- 
portance ?  We  leave  to  the  reader  the  work  of  explaining  this  fact,  which 
has  more  than  once  given  us  food  for  thought. 

g  3.  THE  INTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 

In  his  introduction  to  the  New  Testament  (g  93),  Credner  has  summed 
up  this  evidence  in  the  following  manner :  "  If  we  had  no  historical  state- 
ment respecting  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  we  should,  nevertheless, 
be  led  to  a  positive  result  by  the  indications  which  the  book  itself  affords. 
The  nature  of  the  language,  the  freshness  and  dramatic  vivacity  of  the 
narrative,  the  exactness  and  precision  of  the  statements,  the  peculiar 
manner  in  which  the  forerunner  and  the  sons  of  Zebedee  are  mentioned, 
the  love,  the  passionate  tenderness,  of  the  author  for  the  person  of  Jesus, 
the  irresistible  charm  diffused  over  the  evangelical  history  as  presented 
from  this  ideal  point  of  view,  the  philosophical  reflections  with  which  this 
Gospel  begins, — all  this  leads  us  to  the  following  result :  The  author  of 
this  work  can  only  be  a  man  born  in  Palestine,  only  an  eye-witness  of 
the  ministry  of  Jesus,  only  an  apostle,  only  the  beloved  apostle ;  he  can 
only  be  that  John  whom  Jesus  had  bound  to  His  own  person  by  the 
heavenly  charm  of  His  teaching,  that  John  who  leaned  upon  His  bosom, 
who  stood  near  the  cross,  and  who,  during  his  residence  in  a  city  such  as 
Ephesus  was,  not  only  felt  himself  attracted  by  philosophical  speculation, 
but  even  prepared  himself  to  hold  his  place  among  these  Greeks  who  were 
distinguished  for  their  literary  culture." 

We  cannot  do  better  than  follow  the  course  traced  out  in  this  admirable 
paragraph,  in  which  we  would  only  desire  to  change  the  two  terms,  ideal 
and  philosophical,  which  seem  to  us  not  to  give  the  true  shade  of  thought. 
Taking  this  summary  as  a  programme,  we  shall  also  make  our  beginning 
from  the  circumference,  so  as  gradually  to  approach  towards  the  centre. 

I.  The  author  is  a  Christian  of  Jewish  origin. 

This  is  proved  by  his  style  which,  without  Hebraizing,  nevertheless,  has 
the  inward  peculiarities  of  the  Hebrew  language  (see  p.  135  f). 

This  follows  also  from  the  corrections  which  the  author  makes  the 
translation  of  the  LXX.  undergo  in  accordance  with  the  original  Hebrew 
in  a  certain  number  of  quotations.  We  believe,  with  Westcott1,  that  the 
fact  is  beyond  dispute  in  the  three  passages  which  follow :  vi.  45  (Is.  liv.  13) ; 
xiii.  18  (Ps.  xli.  9);  xix.  37  (Zech.  xii.  10);  and  we  will  add,  without 
hesitation,  xii.  40  (Is.  vi.  10).  In  no  single  instance,  on  the  contrary,  does 
the  evangelist  quote  according  to  the  LXX.  in  disagreement  with  the 
Hebrew. 

The  inner  harmony  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  with  the  Mosaic  Law  and 
the  prophets,  His  constant  references  to  the  types  of  the  Jewish  history, 

i  The  Holy  JJibk,  St.  John,  p.  xiv. 


198  BOOK   III.      THE  ORIGIN. 

the  perfect  communion  of  spirit  established  between  Abraham  and  Jesug, 
— all  these  features  are  brought  out  so  forcibly  that  we  must  subscribe  to 
Weizsacker's  judgment:  Only  a  Jew  who,  in  the  foreign  region  where  he 
was  living,  had  preserved  the  inheritance  of  his  youth,  could  relate  his  his- 
tory in  this  way.  The  development  of  the  author's  personal  faith  has 
certainly  passed  through  these  two  normal  phases  of  Jewish-Christian 
faith  :  the  recognition  of  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  and  faith  in  Him  as  the 
Son  of  God.  Compare,  for  the  first  of  these  two  steps,  tbe  profession  of 
faith  of  the  first  disciples,  i.  42,  4G,  and  for  the  second,  the  Avhole  sequel  of 
the  narrative.  This  course  of  development  is  again  suggested  in  the  ex- 
pression which  sums  up  the  Gospel  (xx.  31) :  "  That  ye  may  believe  that 
Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  S071  of  God." 

A  final  and  entirely  decisive  proof  appears  from  the  acquaintance 
which  the  author  shows  with  Jewish  usages.     He  is  perfectly  acquainted 
with  the  Jewish  feasts  (the  Passover,  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles),  and  not 
only  the  greater  ones,  but  also  the  minor  ones,  which  the  law  had  not  in- 
stituted,— as  the  feast  of  Purim,  v.  1  (see  the  Commentary),  and  that  of  the 
I  Dedication,  x.  22.     He  knows  of  the  addition  of  an  eighth  day  to  the  Feast 
I  of  Tabernacles  (vii.  37)  and  the  prohibition  of  all  medical  treatment  on  the 
;■  Sabbath  (ix.  14) ;  the  Jewish  opinions,  according  to  which  the  coming  of  the 
]  Messiah  must  be  preceded  by  that  of  Elijah,  and  the  Messiah  must  spring 
I  from  an  entirely  obscure  origin  (i.  21 ;  vii.  27).     He  is  not  ignorant  either 
:  of  the  hostility  prevailing  between  the  Jews  and  the  Samaritans,  or  of  the 
!  more  spiritual  character  of  the  Messianic  expectation  among  the  latter 
:  (iv.  9,  25,  26).     The  Jewish  manner  of  embalming  bodies,  different  from 
r.  that  of  the  Egyptians  (xix.  40),  the  custom  on  the  part  of  the  Jews  of 
I  purifying  themselves  on  entering  their  dwellings  (ii.  6),  the  synagogal 
1    excommunication  (ix.  22),  the  custom  of  closing  the  sepulchral   caves 
with  great  stones  (xi.  38;  xx.  i.),  the  sale  of  animals  and  the  money  ex- 
change established  in  the  temple  (ii.  14), — all  these  circumstances,  several 
of  which  are  not  mentioned  in  the  Synoptics,  are  familiar  to  him.     He  is 
acquainted  with  the  scruples  which  the  Jews  feel,  both  as  to  entering  into 
the  house  of  a  Gentile,  and  as  to  leaving  the  bodies  of  condemned  persons 
publicly  exposed  beyond  the  very  day  of  execution  (xviii.  28 ;  xix.  31). 
He  knows  that  a  Rabbi  does  not  engage  in  conversation  with  a  woman 
I  (iv.  27) ;  that  thereligious  leaders  of  the  nation  treat  with  the  most  pro- 
found disdain  the  portion  of  the  people  who  have  not  received  the  Rab- 
binical teaching  (vii.  49) ;  and  finally,  that,  in  case  of  a  conflict  between 
the  law  of  the  Sabbath  and  that  of  circumcision  on  the  eighth  day,  the 
latter  takes  precedence  of  the  former  (vii.  22,  23). 

II.  This  Jew  did  not  live  in  a  foreign  land  ;  he  is  a  Palestinian  Jew. 
He  speaks  of  different  places  in  the  Holy  Land  as  a  man  who  is  ac- 
quainted with  them  for  himself  and  to  whom  all  the  topographical  details 
of  that  country  are  familiar.  He  knows  that  there  are  other  places  of  the 
name  of  Cana  and  Bethsaida  than  those  of  which  he  is  speaking,  and 
which  he  marks  by  the  epithet :  of  Galilee  (ii.  1 ;  xii.  21).  He  knows  that 
Bethany  is  fifteen  furlongs  from  Jerusalem  (xi.  18) ;  that  Ephraim  is  situ- 


THE   AUTHOR — THE   INTERNAL   EVIDENCE.  199 

ated  on  the  borders  of  the  desert  (xi.  54) ;  thatiEnon  is  near  to  Salim  (iii.  23) ;  \ 
that  a  distance  of  twenty-five  or  thirty  furlongs  is  nearly  equal  to  one-half  I 
of  the  breadth  of  the  sea  of  Tiberias  (vi.  19,  comp.  with  Matt.  xiv.  24) ;  that 
the  circuit  of  the  northern  shore  of  this  sea  can  be  easily  made  on  foot 
(vi.  5,  22) ;  that  in  order  to  go  from  Can  a  to  Capernaum,  one  must  go 
down  (ii.  12);  that  Cedron  must  be  crossed  by  a  bridge  in  order  to  go  from 
Jerusalem  to  the  foot  of  the  Mount  of  Olives  (xviii.  1) ;  that  the  pool  of  I 
Siloam  is  very  near  to  Jerusalem  (ix.  7) ;  and  that  there  are  intermittent 
springs  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  temple  (v.  7).     He  also  knows  the 
place  in  the  temple  where  the  boxes  designed  to  receive  the  offerings  are  I 
found  (viii.  20),  and  Solomon's  porch  (x.  23).    The  picture  of  the  entrance 
to  the  valley  of  Sichem,  in  the  scene  of  Jacob's  well,  can  only  have  been 
traced  by  a  man  who  had  looked  upon  Mount  Gerizim  towering  above 
the  valley,  and  the  magnificent  fields  of  wheat  which  stretched  to  the 
right  of  the  plain  of  Mukhna.     Penan  declares  :  "  A  Jew  of  Palestine,  who    I 
had  often   passed  through  the  entrance  of  the  valley  of  Sichem,  could  | 
alone  have  written  this." 

The  author  is  no  less  well-informed  as  to  the  historical  circumstances  of  . 
the  epoch  in  which  the  facts  which  he  describes  occur.  He  knows  that/ 
the  right  of  putting  to  death  has  been  recently  taken  away  from  the  Jewsj 
(xviii.  31.) ;  he  knows  that,  at  the  moment  when  Jesus  appears  for  the  first{ 
time  in  the  temple,  the  work  of  the  reconstruction  of  that  edifice  hasf 
already  continued  for  forty -six  years  (ii.  20).  He  is  thoroughly  acquainted" 
with  the  relations  of  family  and  sympathy  which  unite  the  present  high- 
priest  with  the  former  high-priest,  and  the  influence  which  the  latter  con- 1 
tinues  to  exercise  upon  the  course  of  affairs  (xviii.  13-28). 

Baur  believed  that  he  had  discovered  in  our  Gospel  a  multitude  of  his-  . 
torical  and  geographical  errors.  This  accusation  is  abandoned  at  the 
present  day.  "  There  is  no  reason,"  says  Keim  himself,  "  to  believe  in 
these  alleged  errors  "  (p.  133).  Renan  abounds  in  his  expressions  of  this 
view :  "  The  too  often  repeated  opinion  that  our  author  was  neither  ac- 
quainted with  Jerusalem  nor  with  Jewish  matters,  seems  to  me  altogether 
destitute  of  foundation  "  (p.  522).1 

III.  We  can  prove  by  a  mass  of  details  that  this  Palestinian  Jew  was  a 
contemporary  of  Jesus  and  a  witness  of  His  history ;  let  us  even  add,  in 
order  that  we  may  not  enter  too  much  into  detail  and  prolong  the  discus- 
sion too  far,  an  apostle. 

This  appears  from  the  mass  of  minute  details,  abounding  in  the  narra- 
tive, which  it  is  impossible  to  explain  by  a  dogmatic  or  a  philosophical 
idea,  and  which  can  only  be  the  quite  simple  and  almost  involuntary  ex- 
pression of  personal  recollection. 

And,  first,  with  reference  to  times  and  occasions :  "  It  was  about  the  J 
tenth  hour"  (i.  40) ;  "  It  was  about  the  sixth  hour  "  (iv.  6) ;  "And  he  abode  | 
there  two  days  "  (iv.  40) ;  "  Yesterday,  at  the  seventh  hour  "  (iv.  52) ;  "It  | 

»See,  on  the  alleged  mistakes  imputed  by       23  (/Enon);  iv.  5  (Sychar);  xviii    1  (Cedron); 
Baur  to  the  evangelist,  this  Commentary,  at       vii.  52;  xi.  49,  etc. 
the  following  passages:   i.  28  (Bethany);  iii. 


i 


200  BOOK  III.      THE  ORIGIN. 

,  was  winter,"  or  "It  was  stormy  weather  "(x.  22) ;  "  It  was  night  "  (xiii.  30) ; 
*  "  In  infirmity  for  thirty-eight  years  "  (v.  5).     As  to  the  designation  of 

«^,      places :  the  treasury  of  the  temple  (viii.  20) ;  Solomon's  porch  (x.  23)  ; 

j-j,  Jesus  stopped  outside  of  the  village  (xi.  30).  As  to  numbers :  the  six 
water-pots  in  the  vestibule  (ii.  6) ;  the  four  soldiers  (xix.  23) ;  the  hundred 
pounds  of  perfume  (xix.  39);  the  two  hundred  cubits  of  distance,  and  the 
one  hundred  and  fifty-three  fishes  (xxi.  8,  11).  We  are  introduced  by  all 
sorts  of  details  into  the  inmost  circle  of  Jesus  and  His  disciples.  The 
tL  author  recalls  the  relations  full  of  pleasantness,  .which  Jesus  sustained 
towards  them — towards  Philip,  for  example  (vi.  5-7) ;  the  intervention  of 
Andrew  (vv.  8,  9) ;  the  small  boy  having  the  loaves ;  the  indirect  warning 
given  to  Judas  (ver.  70) ;  the  name  of  the  father  of  this  apostle  (ver.  71) ; 
the  rough,  but  generous  declaration  of  Thomas  (xi.  16) ;  his  incredulous 
exclamation  and  his  cry  of  adoration  (xx.  25, 28) ;  the  questions  of  Thomas, 
Philip,  and  Judas,  on  the  last  evening  (chap,  xiv.);  the  decisive  moment 
when  the  light  finally  came  to  them  all,  and  when  they  proclaimed  their 
faith  (xvi.  30) ;  the  sudden  invitation  of  Jesus :  "  Arise,  let  us  go  hence  " 
(xiv.  31).  Points  such  as  these  may  also  be  noticed  :  "  They  had  kindled 
a  fire  of  coals  ..."  (xviii.  18) ;  "  The  robe  was  without  seam,  woven 
from  the  top  throughout  "  (xix.  23) ;  "  Having  put  the  sponge  around  the 
hyssop-stalk  "  (xix.  29) ;  "  The  servant's  name  was  Malchus  "  (xviii.  10), 
etc.,  etc.  "  So  many  precise  details,"  says  Penan,  "  which  are  perfectly 
understood  if  one  sees  in  them  the  recollections  of  an  old  man  of  a  won- 
derful freshness ;  "  but,  we  will  add,  which  become  repulsive,  in  so  serious 
a  narrative,  if  they  are  only  fictitious  details  designed  to  conceal  the 
romance-writer  under  the  mask  of  the  historian.  Only  a  profane  charla- 
tan could  thus  trifle  with  the  person  and  character  of  the  best-known 
actors  in  the  evangelical  drama,  and  with  the  person  of  the  Lord  Himself. 
Weitzel  has  properly  noticed  how  this  delicate  narrative  initiates  us  into 
all  the  varied  shades  of  the  inmost  life  of  the  apostolic  circle.1  The  author 
designates  the  disciples,  not  according  to  their  names  as  generally  received 
in  the  Church — the  ones  which  they  bear  in  the  apostolic  catalogues,  but 
according  to  that  which  they  bore  among  their  fellow-disciples  ;  thus,  in- 
stead of  Bartholomew,  he  says:  Nathanael  (i.  46-50;  xxi.  2),  and  three 
times -he  designates  Thomas  by  the  Greek  translation  Didymus  (twin),  as 
if  it  were  for  him  a  matter  of  personal  reminiscence,  dear  to  his  heart 
(xi.  16;  xx.  24;  xxi.  2). 

To  all  these  details,  let  us  add  the  great  scenes, in  which,  as  if  openly, 
the  pencil  of  the  eye-witness  shows  itself:  the  story  of  the  calling  of  the 
first  disciples  (chap,  i.) ;  of  the  visit  to  Samaria  (iv.) ;  of  the  confidential 
scenes  at  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus  and  at  the  washing  of  the  disciples' 
feet  (xi.  and  xiii.);  and  finally,  the  incomparable  picture  of  the  negotia- 
tions of  Pilate  with  the  Jews  (xviii.  and  xix.). 

If,  after  all  these  facts,  any  doubts  could  remain  for  us  with  reference  to 
the  author's  having  the  character  of  an  eye-witness,  they  would  fall  away 

1  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1849. 


THE   AUTHOR — TnE   INTERNAL   EVIDENCE.  201 

before  his  own  testimony,  which  no  one  at  the  present  day — neither  Weiz- 
sacker  nor  Reuss  and  Sabatier, — can  bring  themselves  to  charge  with  im- 
posture, as  the  school  of  Baur  did. 

This  testimony  is  expressed  in  the  three  following  passages:  i.  14;  xix. 
35,  and  1  Ep.  i.  1-1. 

The  author  expresses  himself  thus  in  i.  14;  "And  the  Word  became 
flesh  and  dwelt  among  us,  and  we  beheld  his  glory.  .  .  ."  It  is  at  present 
claimed  that  the  question  here  is  only  of  the  interior  sight  of  faith,  which 
is  the  appanage  of  every  Christian.  Does  not  Paul  say,  "  We  behold  the 
glory  of  the  Lord  with  unveiled  face"  (2  Cor.  hi.  18) ;  and  John  himself:' 
"Whosoever  sinneth  hath  not  seen  him  "  (1  John  iii.  6)?  Thus  speak 
Keim  and  Rcuss.  There  is  a  spiritual  beholding  of  Jesus,  it  is  true,  to 
which  the  quoted  words  refer ;  but  these  words  are  not  found,  in  the  epis- 
tles from  which  they  are  taken,  in  connection  with  the  representation  of 
the  fact  of  the  incarnation,  as  in  the  passage  John  i.  14 :  "  The  Word 
became  flesh,  ...  it  dwelt,  .  .  .  and  we  beheld.  .  .  ."  At  the  beginning  of 
an  historical  work,  which  commences  thus,  and  in  which  the  earthly  life  of 
Jesus  is  to  be  related,  such  a  declaration  cannot  have  any  other  intention 
than  that  of  solemnly  legitimizing  the  narrative  which  is  to  follow.  We 
cannot  confound  such  a  context  with  that  of  an  epistle  in  which  the 
author  describes  the  spiritual  state  common  to  all  Christians. 

The  passage  xix.  35  has  already  been  examined.  The  identity  of  the 
author  of  the  Gospel  with  the  apostle  who  was  witness  of  the  crucifix- 
ion of  Jesus,  is  there  positively  affirmed.  "This  passage,"  Sabatier  ob- 
jects, "is  of  too  similar  a  tenor  to  that  of  the  appendix  (xxi.  24),  for  us 
not  to  draw  from  it  the  same  conclusion."  But  we  have  already  shown 
(p.  185)  that  the  tenor  of  the  two  passages  is,  on  the  contrary,  entirely 
different,  in  chap,  xix  :  (he  knoics),  the  witness  affirms  his  identity  with  the 
redactor  of  the  Gospel ;  in  chap. xxi.:  (we  know),  the  friends  of  the  author 
and  witness  affirm  his  identity  with  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved ;  thus 
each  affirms  fundamentally  the  same  thing,  but  in  a  manner  apposite  to 
his  particular  position  and  role.1 

There  exists  a  second  work,  coming  evidently  from  the  same  pen  as  the 
Gospel,  and  whose  author  likewise  declares  himself  a  witness  of  the  facts 
and  an  apostle,  with  a  clearness  which  leaves  nothing  to  be  desired  on  the 
part  of  any  one  who  does  not  wish  to  close  his  eyes  to  the  light.  We 
read,  1  Ep.  of  John  i.  1  ff. :  "That  which  was  from  the  beginning,  which 
we  have  heard,  which  we  have  seen  with  our  eyes,  which  we  have  beheld 
and  our  hands  have  handled  of  the  Word  of  life,  .  .  .  we  declare  it  unto 
you,  that  you  may  have  fellowship  with  us  ;  .  .  .  and  we  write  unto  you 
these  things,  that  your  joy  may  be  fulfilled ;  and  this  is  the  message  which 
we  have  heard  from  him  and  declare  unto  you.  ..."  How  can  we  deny,  in 
the  face  of  expressions  like  these,  that  the  author  had  the  intention  of 
giving  himself  out  as  an  eye  and  ear-witness  of  the  facts  of  the  Gospel 

1  The  ten  lines  of  Sabatier  on  this  subject  inexplicable  enigma  and  one  which  cannot 
(Encycl.  des  sc.  relig.,  p.  193),  are  for  me  an        bo  discussed. 


202  BOOK   III.      THE   ORIGIN. 

history?  Let  any  one  tell  us  what  more  forcible  terms  he  could  have 
used  in  order  to  designate  himself  as  such.  Reuss  says  :  "  The  fact  that 
Jesus  lived  the  life  of  mortals  is  enough  to  enable  every  believer  to  say : 
We  have  seen,  heard,  touched  Him." l  Yes,  but  on  the  condition  that,  in 
speaking  thus,  he  does  not  place  himself  in  express  contrast  to  other  be- 
lievers who  have  neither  seen  nor  heard  nor  touched,  and  to  whom  for 
this  reason  he  says :  "  We  declare  unto  you,  .  .  .  we  write  to  you  these 
things,  to  the  end  that  you  may  have  part  in  them,  and  that  your  joy  may 
be  as  complete  as  ours."  Reuss  says :  "  Every  preacher  who  hands  over 
the  truth  to  a  new  generation  will  constantly  be  able  to  express  himself  in 
the  same  way."  We  leave  in  his  happy  quietude  the  man  who  can  bring 
himself  into  tranquillity  by  such  a  subterfuge.  There  is  evidently  here 
the  same  contrast  as  in  John  xx.  29,  between  those  who  have  seen  and  those 
who  must  believe  ivithout  having  seen,  or,  as  in  xix.  35,  between  the  one  who 
has  seen  and  you  who  are  to  believe.  Sabatier  has  recourse  to  another  ex- 
pedient. He  thinks  he  can  explain  these  words  by  the  author's  desire, 
"  not  to  give  an  historical  testimony,  but  to  combat  Docetism."  There  is 
nothing  more  in  these  words  therefore,  he  says,  than  "  the  positive  affirm- 
ation of  the  reality  of  the  flesh  of  Jesu^  Christ "  (p.  193).  But,  if  it 
were  so,  to  what  purpose  the  commencing  with  these  words:  That  which 
was  from  the  beginning,  which  are  developed  in  the  second  verse  by  the 
following :  "  And  the  life  which  was  with  the  Father  was  manifested,  and  we 
have  seen  it,  and  we  bear  witness  of  it?  "  We  see  that  the  thought  of  the 
author  is  not  to  contrast  the  reality  of  Jesus'  body  with  the  idea  of  a  mere 
appearance,  but' to  bring  out  these  two  facts  which  seemed  contradictory, 
and  the  union  of  which  was  of  vital  importance  to  his  view :  on  one  side, 
the  divine,  eternal  being  of  Christ;  on  the  other,  the  perfect  reahty, 
not  of  His  body  only,  but  of  His  human  existence.  It  is  the  same  thought 
as  that  which  is  formulated  in  the  expression  which  is  the  theme  of  the 
Gospel :  "  The  Word  was  made  flesh."  Moreover,  the  Docetae  did  not 
deny  the  sensible  appearances  in  the  life  of  the  Lord,  and  the  apostle 
would  not  have  accomplished  anything  in  opposition  to  them  by  affirming 
these. 

It  remains  incontrovertible,  therefore,  for  every  one  who  is  determined 
to  take  the  texts,  for  what  they  are,  and  not  to  make  them  say  what  he 
wishes,  that  the  author  expressly  gives  himself  out  in  two  of  these  texts, 
and  that  he  is  given  out  in  the  third  by  his  friends  who  know  him  person- 
ally, as  the  witness  of  the  facts  related  in  this  book  ;  and  if  one  refuses  to 
admit  this  double  testimony,  one  cannot  escape  the  necessity  of  making 
him  an  impostor.  We  are  thankful  to  the  modern  writers  who,  like  Reuss 
and  Sabatier,  shrink  from  such  a  consequence  ;  but  we  believe  that  it  is 
impossible  to  do  so  except  by  sacrificing  the  exegetical  conscience. 

IV.  If  we  endeavor,  finally,  to  designate  this  apostle,  at  once  the  witness 
and  redactor  of  the  evangelical  facts,  we  are  forced  to  recognize  in  him  the 
disciple  whom  Jesus  loved,  John  himself. 

»  Thiol,  johan.,  p.  106. 


THE  AUTHOR — THE  INTERNAL  EVIDENCE.  203 

And  first :  The  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved. 

The  author  declares  himself,  xix.  35,  to  he  the  one  who  saw  with  his  own 
eyes  two  prophecies  fulfilled  at  the  same  time  by  the  thrust  of  the  heathen 
soldier's  spear.  Now,  his  narrative  mentions  only  one  apostle  as  present 
at  the  crucifixion  of  the  Lord — the  one  whom  Jesus  loved  (ver.  2G).  It  i&, 
evident,  therefore,  that  he  gives  himself  out  as  that  disciple.  We  have 
already  noticed  the  description  of  the  way  in  which  the  disciple  whom 
Jesus  loved  reached  the  helief  in  the  resurrection  (xx.  8, 9).  The  absolutely  " 
autobiographical  character  of  this  story  leaves  no  doubt  as  to  the  identity'; 
of  this  disciple  with  the  author.  The  same  is  the  case  with  the  confidential 
and  entirely  personal  details  which  are  given  respecting  the  relation  of 
Peter  to  him  at  the  last  supper  (xiii.  24-27),  and  of  the  story  of  his  last 
conversation  with  Jesus  following  upon  His  appearance  in  Galilee  (xxi.  19- 
22).  Let  us  add  that  no  one  ought  to  have  been  more  anxious  than  the 
disciple  whom  Jesus  loved  to  set  right  the  meaning  of  a  saying  which  con- 
cerned him,  and  Avhich  was  circulating  in  a  form  that  was  compromising 
to  the  dignity  of  Jesus. 

We  say  further :  John,  the  son  of  Zebedee. 

In  all  the  apostolic  catalogues,  John  and  James  are  named  in  the  first  j 
place  after  Simon  Peter,  and  this  rank  which  is  constantly  assigned  to  them 
is  justified  by  the  peculiar  distinctions  which  they  shared  with  that  apostle. 
How  does  it  happen  that  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  in  the  single  case  in  which 
the  sons  of  Zebedee  are  mentioned  (xxi.  2),  they  are  placed  last  among  the 
five  apostles  who  are  named,  and  thus  after  Thomas  and  Nathanael?  This 
circumstance  can  be  explained  only  if  the  author  of  this  narrative  is  pre- 
cisely one  of  these  two  brothers.  In  the  Synoptics,  the  forerunner  of  Jesus 
is  constantly  called:  John  the  Baptist;  this  was  the  title  which  had  been  %> 
conferred  upon  him  not  only  by  the  Christian,  but  also  by  the  Jewish  tra- 
dition, as  we  see  from  Josephus  (Antiq.  xviii.  5.  2.):  "John,  simiamcd  Bap- 
tist, whom  Herod  had  killed."  In  our  Gospel,  on  the  contrary,  he  is  always 
called  simply  John.  It  must  naturally  be  inferred  from  this  fact,  that  the 
author  of  this  narrative  had  learned  to  know  the  forerunner  before  fame 
had  added  to  his  name,  as  an  inseparable  epithet,  the  title  of  Baptist,  con- 
sequently from  the  beginning  of  his  public  activity.  Then,  if  we  have 
reasons  for  holding  that  the  author  himself  bore  the  name  of  John,  we  can 
the  more  easily  understand  how  he  did  not  feel  the  need  of  giving  to  the 
forerunner  a  title  suited  to  distinguish  him  from  some  other  John,  not  less 
known  in  the  Church.  For  the  idea  of  a  confusion  between  him  and  the 
one  who  had  the  same  name  with  him  must  have  been,  as  Hase  says, 
"  entirely  remote  from  his  consciousness."  Finally,  there  remains  a  de-*> 
cisive  circumstance :  it  is  the  absence  from  the  narrative  of  any  mention*" 
both  of  the  name  of  John  himself,  and  of  the  names  of  the  other  memhers 
of  his  family.  His  mother,  Salome,  who  is  mentioned  in  the  Synoptics 
among  the  women  present  at  the  crucifixion  of  Jesus  (Matt,  xxvii.  50 ; 
Mark  xvi.  1)  is  not  named  here  in  the  parallel  enumeration  (John  xix.  25). 
No  more  is  James  mentioned  in  the  scene  of  the  calling  of  the  first  dis- 
ciples (chap,  i.),  where,  however,  a  slight  touch  full  of  delicacy  betrays  his 


204  BOOK  III.      THE  ORIGIN. 

presence.1  This  way  of  proceeding  is  absolutely  different  from  that  of 
forgers.  "  The  latter,"  says  Reuss,  "  make  it  their  study  to  lay  emphasis 
upon  the  names  which  are  to  serve  them  as  a  passport."2  This  complete 
and  consistent  omission,  from  one  end  of  the  work  to  the  other,  of  the 
names  of  three  personages  who  occupied  one  of  the  first  places  in  the  com- 
pany that  surrounded  Jesus,  does  not  permit  us  to  doubt  that  the  author 
was  in  a  peculiar  relation  to  all  the  three. 

We  cannot  deny  ourselves  the  pleasure  of  quoting  here,  in  closing,  a 
beautiful  paragraph  from  Hase  (p.  48):  "  While  the  Apostle  John  is  no- 
where named,  there  passes  across  the  entire  Gospel  an  unknown  and,  as  it 
were,  veiled  figure,  which  sometimes  comes  forth,  but  without  the  veil  ever 
being  raised.  We  cannot  believe  that  the  author  did  not  himself  know  who 
this  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved  was,  who  at  the  last  supper  rested  on  His 
bosom,  who  with  Peter  followed  his  Master  when  made  a  prisoner,  to  whom 
his  Master  left  His  mother  as  a  charge,  and  who,  running  with  Peter,  came 
first  to  the  tomb.  There  must  have  existed,  therefore,  a  peculiar  relation 
between  the  author  and  this  personage,  and  a  reason,  personal  to  himself, 
for  his  not  naming  him.  Why  is  it  not  natural  to  think  that  he  is  him- 
self designated  by  this  circumlocution  which  included  in  itself  the  sub- 
limest  contents  and  the  whole  happiness  of  his  existence  ?  " 

§  4.  THE  CONTRARY  HYPOTHESES. 

We  shall  occupy  ourselves  here  only  with  the  hypotheses  which  have  a 
serious  character.  We  set  aside,  therefore,  without  discussion,  fancies  such 
as  those  of  Tobler  and  Lutzelberger,  who  ascribe  our  Gospel,  the  former 
to  Apollos,  and  the  latter  to  a  Samaritan  emigrant  at  Edessa  in  Mesopo- 
tamia, about  135.  We  meet,  in  the  first  place,  "  the  great  unknown "  of 
Baur  and  his  school,  who  is  said  to  have  written,  a  little  before  or  after 
the  middle  of  the  second  century,  the  romance  of  the  Logos ;  the  man 
whom  Keim  calls  "  the  most  brilliant  flower  which  followed  the  age  of  the. 
apostles."  One  thing  strikes  us,  at  the  first  glance,  in  this  hypothesis  :  it 
is  precisely  this  title  of  unknown  which  the  critics  are  obliged  to  give  to 
the  author  of  such  a  work.  Every  one  knows  the  mediocrity  of  the  per- 
sonages and  writers  of  the  second  century,  as  compared  with  those  of  the 
first.  To  the  epoch  of  creative  production  that  of  tame  reproduction  had 
succeeded.  What  is  that  Epistle  of  Clement  of  Rome,  to  which  Euscbius 
adjudges  the  epithets  great  and  wonderful  (eniaro?^  fizyakri  re  ml  davfiaala)  ? 
A  good,  pious  letter,  such  as  an  ordinary  Christian  of  our  day  would  write. 
Polycarp  and  Papias  are  in  no  way  superior  to  Clement.  Ignatius  sur- 
passes them  in  originality ;  but  what  strangeness  and  what  eccentricity ! 
Hermas  is  of  the  most  oppressive  dullness.  The  Epistle  to  Diognetus 
shows  a  certain  superiority  in  a  literary  point  of  view;  but  as  to  the 
thoughts,  and  even  as  to  what  it  has  of  a  striking  character  in  the  expo- 

>Chap.  i.  42:  "Andrew  first  finds  his  own       other  disoiple,  also  himself,  sought  his  bro- 
brother  Simon."    This  plrange  form  is  only       ther,  but  found  him  only  at  a  later  moment, 
explicable  by  the  understood  idea  that  the  *  Thiol  johannique,  p.  100. 


THE   AUTHOR — TIIE   CONTRARY   HYPOTHESES.  205 

sition  of  them,  it  rests  absolutely  on  the  epistles  of  Paul  and  the  fourth 
Gospel.  If  what  is  borrowed  from  these  writings  is  taken  away  from  it,  it 
falls  back  into  the  general  mediocrity.  And  yet  in  the  midst  of  this  period 
of  feebleness  there  rises  a  unique  man,  whose  writings  have  so  original  a 
character  that  they  form  a  class  wholly  by  itself  in  the  entire  body  of 
Christian  and  human  literature;  this  man  does  not  live  as  a  hermit;  he 
takes,  according  to  Baur,  an  active  part  in  the  conflicts  of  his  time;  he 
pronounces  the  word  of  pacification  respecting  all  the  questions  which 
disturb  it ;  in  an  incomparable  work,  he  lays  the  foundation  of  the  Chris- 
tianity and  of  the  wisdom  of  future  ages, — and  this  man,  this  "  flower  of 
his  age  "  no  one  has  seen  blooming ;  the  Church,  the  witness  of  his  life 
and  work,  has  forgotten  even  the  trace  of  his  existence.  No  one  can  tell 
where  this  extraordinary  star  rose  and  set.  In  very  truth,  a  strange 
history !  The  critics  say,  it  is  true  :  "Are  not  also  the  author  of  the  book 
of  Job,  and  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  "  great  unknown  " 
persons  ?  We  answer  :  The  remote  antiquity  from  which  the  first  of  these 
works  comes,  remains  for  us  buried  in  profound  darkness ;  what  a  differ- 
ence from  that  second  century  of  the  Church,  respecting  which  Ave  possess 
so  many  and  so  detailed  points  of  information  !  The  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews is  only  a  simple  theological  treatise,  an  important  and  original 
writing,  no  doubt ;  but  what  a  difference  as  compared  with  a  work  con- 
taining a  history,  in  many  respects  new,  of  Jesus,  that  chief  of  all  subjects 
to  the  view  of  the  Church  !  The  author  of  the  one  is  lost  in  the  splendors 
of  the  apostolic  period ;  while  the  author  of  the  other  ought  to  shine  as  a 
star  of  the  first  magnitude  in  the  badly-lighted  sky  of  the  second  century. 
Let  us  add  that  at  that  epoch,  when  the  image  of  Jesus  was  fixed  by 
means  of  three  universally  disseminated  narratives  which  were  already 
distinguished  from  every  other  Writing  of  the  same  kind,  a  pseudo-John 
would  have  carefully  guarded  himself  against  compromising  the  success 
of  his  fraud,  by  deviating  from  the  generally  received  history  of  Jesus. 
Kenan  rightly  says :  "A  forger,  writing  about  the  year  120  or  130  Qiow 
much  more  in  the  period  from  130-1G0 !]  a  gospel  of  imagination,  would 
have  contented  himself  with  treating  the  received  story  after  his  own 
fancy,  as  the  apocryphal  gospels  do,  and  would  not  have  overturned  from 
the  foundation  what  were  regarded  as  the  essential  lines  of  Jesus'  life."1 
Or,  as  Weizsiicker  also  observes,  "He  who  could  have  written  this  Gos- 
pel in  order  to  introduce  into  the  Church  certain  ideas,  would  never  have 
ventured  to  invent  an  historical  basis  so  different  from  that  which  the 
prevailing  traditions  presented." a  The  author  who,  with  a  sovereign  and 
magisterial  authority,  has  modified,  rectified,  completed  the  Synoptical 
narration,  cannot  have  been  a  mere  unknown  person ;  he  must  have  felt 

iViedc  Jesus,  13th  ed.,  pp.  lxxv.-lxxvi.  optical  narratives  with  respect  to  generally 
*  Jahrb.fur  deutscheThculogie,  1859,  p.  C08. —  known  facts,  at  tho  risk  of  immediately  see- 
Renss  says,  in  the  same  line  :  "  Is  it  to  be  ing  his  own  charged  with  errors  ami  false- 
believed  that  a  forger,  if  he  had  desired  to  hoods?"  The  fact  here  Indicated  is  so  mani- 
pass  for  one  of  the  first  disciples,  would  have  feat  that  de  Wette  himself  was  already  struck 
dared  to  deviate  so  many  timos  from  tho  Syn-  by  it ;  "A  definitive  critical  judgment  which 


206  BOOK   III.      THE   ORIGIN. 

himself  to  be  recognized  as  a  master  on  this  ground,  and  assured  of  finding 
credence  for  his  narrative  in  the  bosom  of  the  Church. 

Hase  also  justly  calls  attention  to  the  point,  that  a  writer  removed  from 
the  facts  and  desirous  of  offering  to  the  men  of  his  time  a  picture  of  the 
person  of  the  Logos,  would  not  have  failed,  in  this  fictitious  image,  to  re- 
duce the  human  element  to  a  minimum  and  to  trace  the  absolutely  mar- 
velous history  of  a  God,  according  to  him  only  a  mere  earthly  form;  while 
the  fourth  Gospel  presents  to  us  precisely  the  opposite  phenomenon : 
"  Everywhere  in  Jesus  the  most  complete  and  tender  humanity ;  every- 
where, under  the  golden  breastplate  of  the  Logos,  the  beating  of  the  heart 
of  a  true  man,  whether  in  joy  or  in  grief."1 

Hilgenfeld  thinks  that  the  unknown  author,  in  composing  such  a  work, 
wished  to  bring  back  the  churches  of  Asia  from  the  Judaizing  Christianity 
of  the  Apostle  John  to  the  pure  spiritualism  of  St.  Paul,  which  was  origi- 
nally established  in  those  churches.  Ordinarily,  the  course  of  forgers  is 
justified  by  saying,  that  they  make  the  alleged  author  speak  as  they  think 
that  he  would  have  spoken  in  the  circumstances  in  which  they  are  them- 
selves living.  It  is  in  this  way  that  Keim  also  excuses  the  pseudo-John  : 
<;  Our  author  has  written  in  the  just  conviction  that  John  would  have  writ- 
ten precisely  so,  if  he  were  still  living  at  his  time."  Let  our  two  critics 
put  themselves  in  accord,  if  they  can!  According  to  the  second,  the 
author  aims  at  continuing  the  Johannean  work  in  Asia ;  according  to  the 
first,  he  labors  to  overthrow  it,  and  that  by  borrowing  the  mask  of  John 
himself!  This  second  degree  of  pious  fraud  draws  very  near  to  impious 
fraud. 

The  expedient  of  pious  fraud  has  been  singularly  abused  in  these  last 
times,  as  if  this  device  had  been  allowed  without  reluctance  by  the  con- 
science of  the  Church  itself.  That  it  was  frequently  made  use  of,  the  facts 
indisputably  prove ;  but  that  the  Church  ever  gave  its  assent  to  it,  the 
facts  quite  as  positively  deny.  It  was  in  vain  for  the  author  of  the  well- 
known  book  :  The  Acts  of  Paul  and  Thecla,  to  allege  that  he  had  composed 
that  little  story  with  a  good  intention  and  out  of  love  for  the  Apostle  Paul 
(id  se  amore  Pauli  fecisse) ;  he  was  nevertheless  obliged,  after  having  con- 
fessed his  faults,  to  give  up  his  office  of  presbyter  (convictum  atque  confession 
loco  decessisse).  Here  is  what  took  place,  according  to  the  report  of  Ter- 
tullian,  in  a  church  of  Asia  Minor,  in  the  second  century.2  And  yet  the 
question  in  the  case  of  that  writing  was  only  of  a  harmless  anecdote  of 
which  Paul  was  the  hero,  while,  in  tho  case  of  the  fourth  Gespel,  the 
romance  would  be  nothing  less  than  a  fictitious  history  of  the  .person  of 
the  Lord ! 

This  mysterious  X  of  the  Tubingen  criticism  is  ir.  truth  only  an  imag- 

denies  to  John  any  participation  in  this  work,  were  bo  important,  without  feeling  itself  as- 

has  against  it  not  only  the  odiousness  of  the  sured  and  quieted  by  its  apostolio  authority." 

supposition  of  a  forger,  but  also  the  improba-  — Einl.,  g  110  g. 

bility  that  Christian  antiquity  would  have  ae-  *  Oesch.  Jcsu,  p.  47. 

cepted   a  Gospel  which  deviated  from  the  *  TertulUaa,  de  baptismo. 
evangelical  tradition  respecting  points  which 


THE   AUTHOR — THE   CONTRARY   HYPOTHESES.  207 

inary  quantity.  As  soon  as  we  place  ourselves  in  the  presence  of  the  world 
of  realities,  we  understand  that  this  great  unknown  is  no  other  than  a 
great  unrecognized  one,  John  himself. 

It  was  necessary,  therefore,  to  make  trial  of  a  name.  Nicolas  has  pro- 
posed the  presbyter  John,  and  it  is  for  this  personage  that  Penan  seems 
disposed,  at  present,  to  decide.1  But  this  hypothesis  raises  difficulties  of 
no  less  magnitude  than  the  preceding  one.  First  of  all,  it  cannot  be  sup- 
posed that  such  a  man,  an  immediate  disciple  of  Jesus  and  contemporary 
of  John,  would  have  tried  to  make  himself  pass  for  that  apostle,  by  ex- 
pressing himself  as  he  makes  the  author  do  in  the  passage  xix.  35.  More- 
over, with  what  other  intention  than  that  of  disguising  himself,  could  he 
have  effaced  so  carefully  from  his  narrative  the  names  of  this  apostle,  of 
his  brother  and  his  mother  ?  Can  such  a  role  be  attributed  to  the  aged 
disciple  of  the  Lord?  Finally,  this  pious  presbyter  can  only  have  been  a 
man  of  the  second  rank.  Papias,  in  the  enumeration  of  his  authorities, 
assigns  to  him  the  last  place,  even  after  Aristion.  Polycrates,  in  his 
letter  to  Victor,  in  which  he  recalls  to  mind  all  the  eminent  men  who  had 
made  the  Church  of  Asia  illustrious,  the  apostles  Philip  and  John,  Poly- 
carp  of  Smyrna,  Thrasias  of  Eumenia,  Sagaris  of  Laodicea,  Melito  of 
Sardis,  makes  no  mention  of  this  personage.  "  We  must  therefore,"  says 
Sabatier  rightly  (p.  195),  "leave  him  in  the  shade  and  in  the  secondary 
rank  where  the  documents  set  him  before  us.  He  is  of  no  assistance  for 
the  solution  of  the  Johannean  question." 

And  what  do  Reuss,  Sabatier,  Weizsacker  and  others  do  ?  They  take 
refuge  in  a  sort  of  chiaroscuro.  Not  being  able  to  deny  the  exactness, 
the  precision,  the  historical  superiority  of  the  information  on  which  our 
Gospel  rests,  and,  on  the  other  side,  being  thoroughly  determined  not  to 
acknowledge  the  authenticity  of  the  discourses  of  Jesus,  they  revert  to  an 
anonymous  author,  and  are  satisfied  with  finding  in  him  one  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  school  of  Ephesus,  a  disciple  of  the  apostle,  who  has  mingled  the 
tradition  emanating  from  him  with  Alexandrian  wisdom.  But  can  this 
demi-authenticity  suffice?  Is  it  not,  first  of  all,  contrary  to  the  testi- 
mony of  the  author  himself,  who,  as  we  have  seen,  declares  himself,  in 
his  epistle,  a  personal  witness  of  the  facts,  and,  in  the  Gospel,  a  witness 
of  the  facts,  and  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved?  Is  it  not  contrary,  fur- 
thermore, to  the  testimony  of  his  colleagues,  the  other  members  of  the 
same  school,  who  attest  with  one  accord,  xxi.  24,  that  the  witness  redac- 
tor is  no  other  than  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved?  The  more  we 
find  ourselves  forced  to  carry  back  the  composition  of  this  work  even 
to  the  epoch  of  John  himself,  the  more  are  we  obliged  to  acknowledge 
the  improbability  of  the  supposition  of  a  fraud.  It  must  have  been 
concerted  and  executed,  not  by  an  individual  only,  but  by  the  win  •It- 
community  who  surrounded  John.  This  supposition,  which  has  so  little 
probability,  is,  moreover,  irreconcilable  with  the  admirable  originality  of 
the  discourses  of  Jesus.    In  fact :  cither  these  discourses  are  the  work  of 

1  L'Eglise  chretienne,  1879. 


208  BOOK   III.      THE   ORIGIN. 

the  Apostle  John,  and,  in  that  case,  there  is  no  longer  any  reason  to  con- 
test the  Johannean  composition  of  all  the  rest  of  the  work;  or  they  are 
the  work  of  an  anonymous  disciple  of  this  apostle,  and,  in  that  case,  it  is 
necessary  to  apply  here  what  Sabatier  says  with  reference  to  the  hypothe- 
sis of  the  presbyter  John  :  that  "  the  disciple  remains  infinitely  greater 
than  he  who  served  him  as  a  patron."  And  how  can  we  apply  with  any 
probability  to  an  Ephesian  disciple  of  John  all  that  multitude  of  details 
by  which  we  have  proved  the  Jewish  origin,  the  Palestinian  home,  the 
characteristics  of  contemporary  and  tvitncss,  of  the  author  of  this  Gospel 
narration.  The  master  might  indeed  have  handed  over  to  a  disciple-redac- 
tor the  great  lines  of  the  narrative ;  but  that  multitude  of  particular  and 
minute  details  which  distinguish  this  representation  from  one  end  to  the 
other,  can  only  be  explained  if  the  redactor  and  the  witness  are  one  and 
the  same  person. 

We  conclude  by  saying,  with  B.  Weiss,  that  every  hypothesis  which  is 
opposed  to  the  authenticity  strikes  against  even  greater  difficulties  than 
the  traditional  opinion.  Keim  proudly  says :  "  Our  age  has  set  aside  the 
judgment  of  the  ages."  But  is  the  school  of  Baur  "  our  age  "  ?  And 
were  it  so,  no  age  is  infallible.  There  is  quite  enough  of  one  proclaimed 
infallibility  in  our  days,  without  adding  also  one  of  the  left  to  that  of  the 
right. 


CHAPTER  THIRD. 

THE   PLACE   OF  COMPOSITION. 


If  John  is  indeed  the  author  of  the  Gospel,  and  if  this  apostle  fulfilled 
the  second  part  of  his  apostleship  in  Asia  Minor,  nothing  is  more  prob- 
able than  the  fact  of  the  composition  of  this  Gospel  at  Ephesus.  This  is 
the  unanimous  tradition  of  the  primitive  Church  (see  pp.  38  ff.);  and 
that  region  is  certainly  the  one  in  which  we  can  most  easily  picture  to 
ourselves  the  rise  of  such  a  work.  A  mass  of  details  prevent  us  from 
thinking  that  it  was  composed  for  Palestinian  readers.  To  what  purpose 
to  translate  for  the  ancient  Jews  Hebrew  terms,  such  as  Rabbi,  Messiah, 
I  and  Siloam,  to  mark  the  term  Betjiesda  as  a  Hebrew  name,  and  to  explain 
I  Jewish  usages  (i.  39,  42;  iv.  25;  v.  2 ;  ix.  7;  ii.  G;  xix.  40,  etc.)?  Other 
points  naturally  direct  our  thoughts  towards  a  Greek  country  :  first,  the 
language ;  then  the  complacency  with  which  the  author  points  out  cer- 
tain facts  in  the  ministry  of  Jesus  which  have  reference  to  the  Greeks,  as 
that  ironical  question  of  the  Jews :  "  Will  he  go  to  those  who  are  dispersed 
:  among  the  Greeks?"  (vii.  So),  or  the  request  of  the  Greeks  who,  shortly 
before  the  Passion,  desired  to  converse  with  Jesus  (xii.  20).  It  is  in  an 
Hellenic  sphere  that  these  recollections  would  have  their  complete  appro- 
priateness. But  there  were  Greek  churches  elsewhere  than  in  Asia 
Minor;  so  some  scholars  have  thought  of  different  countries:  Wittichen, 
of  Syria;  Baur,  of  Egypt.  Very  well!  even  independently  of  the  tradi- 
tion, we  think  that  there  would  still  be  cause  for  making  our  choice  in 


THE  OCCASION   AND   AIM   OF   THE   FOURTH   GOSPEL.         209 

favor  of  Asia  Minor.  This  country,  says  Kenan,  "was  at  that  time  the 
theatre  of  a  strange  movement  of  syncretic  philosophy  ;  all  the  germs  of 
Gnosticism  existed  there  already."  We  easily  understand  from  this  fact 
the  use  of  the  term  Logos,  which  alludes  to  the  discussions  which  were 
probably  raised  in  such  a  theological  and  religious  centre.  Is  it  not, 
moreover,  in  this  country  that  the  influence  of  the  Johanncan  Gospel 
makes  itself  quite  peculiarly  felt  during  the  whole  course  of  the  second 
century?  And  is  not  the  heresy  against  which  the  first  Epistle  of  John 
seems  especially  to  be  directed  that  of  Cerinthus,  who  taught  at  Ephcsus 
in  the  latest  period  of  the  apostle's  life  ?  Let  us  add,  that  it  is  to  the 
churches  of  Asia  Minor  that  the  epistles  of  St.  Paul  are  addressed,  which 
treat  the  subject  of  the  person  of  Christ  from  precisely  the  same  point  of 
view  as  the  fourth  Gospel ;  we  mean  the  Epistles  to  the  Colossians  and  the 
Ephesians.  It  Avas  in  these  regions,  no  doubt,  that  human  speculations 
tended  to  lower  the  dignity  of  Christ,  and  that  the  churches  had  the 
most  need  of  being  enlightened  on  this  subject.  These  indications  seem 
to  us  sufficient,  and  even  decisive. 


CHAPTER   FOURTH. 

THE  OCCASION  AND  AIM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 

The  tradition  is  not  as  unanimous  on  this  point,  as  on  the  preceding 
ones.  The  statements  of  the  Fathers  agree  undoubtedly  in  declaring  that, 
if  John  determined  to  write,  it  was  solely  at  the  instance  of  those  who 
surrounded  him.  In  the  Muratorian  Fragment,  it  is  said  that  "John  was 
exhorted  to  write  by  his  fellow  disciples  and  by  the  bishops."  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  states  that  he  did  it  "  at  the  instigation  of  the  leading  men 
and  under  the  inspiration  of  the  Spirit."1  Eusebius  expresses  himself 
thus  :  "The  apostle,  being  urged,  it  is  said,  by  his  friends,  wrote  the  things 
which  the  first  evangelists  had  omitted."2  Finally,  Jerome,  in  his  em- 
phatic style,  declares  that  "he  was  constrained  by  almost  the  whole 
body  of  the  bishops  of  Asia,  and  by  deputations  from  numerous  churches, 
to  write  something  more  profound  respecting  the  divinity  of  the  Saviour 
and  to  soar  upwards  even  to  the  Word  of  God.""  This  circumstance, 
attested  in  so  many  ways,  is  interesting  in  that  it  accords  with  what  wo 
know  of  the  essentially  receptive  character,  and  the  absence  of  outward 
initiative,  which  distinguished  the  Apostle  John.  But  the  foreign  impulse 
which  induced  him  to  take  up  his  pen  must  itself  have  been  called  forth 
by  some  external  circumstance;  and  the  following  is  that  which  naturally 
presents  itself  to  the  mind.  John  had  for  along  period  taught  by  the 
living  voice  in  those  churches.  When  the  Synoptics  reached  those  regions, 
his  hearers  noticed  and  appreciated  the  differences  which  distinguished 

1  TIpoTpanevra    iinb    tuiv   yvu>pip.<*iv,    TTvevp-aTi.  2  //.  E.  iii.  21. 

ttofyopqBiVTi  (Eus.  H.  E.  vi.  14).  ^Comment,  in  Matth.  iv.Dcvir.  illustr.  c.  9. 

14 


210  BOOK    III.      THE   ORIGIN. 

the  accounts  given  by  their  apostle  from  these  other  narrations ;  and  it 
was  the  impression  produced  by  this  discovery  which,  no  doubt,  occasioned 
the  solicitations  that  were  thereafter  addressed  to  him.  This  explanation  is 
.confirmed  by  the  testimony  of  Clement.  "  John,  the  last,  seeing  that  the 
^external  things  {corporeal)  had  been  described  in  the  Gospels  (the  Synop- 
jtics),  at  the  instigation  of  the  leading  men  .  .  .  composed  a  spiritual  Gos- 
Jpel."  Eusebius  also  says  that  "  when  Matthew,  Mark  and  Luke  had  each 
published  his  Gospel,  these  writings  having  come  into  the  hands  of  all, 
and  into  John's  hands,  he  approved  them,  .  .  .  and  that,  being  urged  by 
his  friends,  he  wrote  .  .  ."  (see  above).  These  friends  of  John,  who  had 
induced  him  to  write,  were  undoubtedly  the  depositaries  of  his  book  and 
those  who  took  charge  of  its  publication  ;  and  it  was  they  also  who,  in  ac- 
quitting themselves  of  this  duty,  furnished  it  with  the  postscript  which 
has  accompanied  it  throughout  the  whole  world  and  has  reached  even  to 
|  us  (xxi.  24). 

But  what  aim  did  the  apostle  especially  propose  to  himself  in  acceding 
to  this  desire?  Here  the  ancient  and  modern  writers  differ.  The  author 
of  the  Muratorian  Fragment  does  not  seem  to  admit  any  other  intention 
in  the  evangelist  than  that  of  instructing  and  edifying  the  Church.  John 
had,  according  to  him,  the  office  of  relating;  the  other  apostles  present 
(Philip,  Andrew  ?)  that  of  criticising.  These  expressions  imply  a  purely 
historical  and  practical  aim. 

If,  however,  the  Synoptical  Gospels  were  already  in  the  hands  both  of  the 
author  and  of  the  readers,  it  is  impossible  that  the  new  narrative  should 
not  have  been  designed  to  complete,  or  in  certain  respects  to  correct  the 
earlier  narratives.-  Else,  to  what  purpose  draw  up  a  new  one?  So 
several  of  the  Fathers  do  not  hesitate  to  set  forth  this  second  aim,  which 
is  closely  connected  with  the  first.  Eusebius  declares  that  the  apostle 
wrote  the  things  which  were  omitted  by  the  first  evangelists,  and,  quite 
specially,  that  he  supplied  the  omission  of  that  which  Jesus  had  done  at 
the  beginning  of  His  ministry;  then  he  adds  that  "if  Matthew  and  Luke 
have  preserved  for  us  the  genealogy  of  Jesus  according  to  the  flesh  {yevea- 
Tioyia),  John  has  taken  as  his  starting-point  His  divinity  {6:oloyia)." 
"This,"  he  adds,  "  was  the  part  which  the  Divine  Spirit  had  reserved  for 
him  as  the  most  excellent  of  all  "  (iii.  24).  Clement  of  Alexandria  gives  a 
very  elevated  and  altogether  spiritual  import  to  John's  intention  of  com- 
pleting the  Synoptics :  "  As  the  corporeal  things  were  described  in  the 
Gospels,  he  was  solicited  to  write  a  spiritual  Gospel,"  that  is  to  say,  a  Gos- 
pel fitted  to  set  forth,  by  means  of  the  discourses  of  Jesus  preserved  in 
this  narrative,  the  spirit  of  the  facts  which  are  related  by  the  Synoptics. 

To  this  historico-didactic  aim  some  Fathers  add  the  intention  to  combat 
different  errors  which  were  beginning  to  come  to  light  at  the  close  of  the 
first  century.  This  polemical  aim  Irena;us  attributes,  if  not  to  the  whole 
Gospel  as  is  frequently  said,  at  least  to  the  prologue  :  "  John,  the  Lord's 
disciple,  wishing  to  root  out  the  seed  which  was  scattered  abroad  in  the 
hearts  of  men  by  Cerinthus,  and  already  before  him  by  the  Nicolaitans 
.  .  .  ,  and  to  lay  down  in  the  Church  the  rule  of  truth,  began  thus  "  (iii. 


THE  OCCASION   AND   AIM   OP  THE   FOURTH   GOSPEL.        211 

11, 1).  Jerome  expresses  himself  almost  in  the  same  way  :  "  As  John  was 
in  Asia  and  the  seed  of  the  heretics,  such  as  Cerinthus,  Ebion  and  others 
who  deny  that  Christ  has  come  in  the  flesh,  was  already  multiplying  .  .  .  , 
he  replied  to  his  brethren  who  solicited  him,  that  he  would  write  if  all 
lasted  and  prayed  to  God  with  him,  which  was  done.  After  which,  the 
revelation  by  which  he  was  filled  broke  forth  in  this  prologue  :  In  the  be- 
ginning was  the  Word."  (Ibid.)  Some  modern  writers  have  laid  hold 
upon  these  suppositions,  or  have  added  new  ones  to  them.  Erasmus,  Gro- 
tius  and  Hengstenberg  adhere  to  the  idea  of  a  polemic  against  Cerinthus. 
Lessing,  de  Wette  and  others  think,  with  Jerome,  that  it  is  especially  the 
Ebionites  whom  the  author  had  in  mind.  Semler,  Selmeckenburger  and 
Ebrard  believe  that  he  had  the  Docctae  in  view ;  Grotius,  Storr  and 
Ewald ;  the  disciples  of  John  the  Baptist. 

Finally,  the  modern  school,  rejecting  with  a  sort  of  disdain  the  differ- 
ent aims  which  we  have  just  indicated,  and  thinking  to  rise  to  a  higher 
conception  of  our  Gospel,  ascribe  to  it  a  purely  speculative  aim.1  Lessing 
had  already  declared  that  John  had  saved  Christianity — which  would, 
without  him,  have  disappeared  as  a  Jewish  sect — by  teaching  a  loftier 
conception  of  the  person  of  Christ.2  Whence  had  he  drawn  this  new 
notion  of  the  Christ?  Lessing  did  not  enter  into  an  explanation  as  to 
this  point,  through  prudence  no  doubt.  Modern  criticism  has  undertaken 
to  give  the  explanation  in  his  place.  Li'icke  thinks  that  John  proposed 
to  himself  to  raise  the  simple  faith  of  the  Church,  threatened  by  the 
double  heresy  of  Ebionitism  and  Gnosticism,  to  the  state  of  Gnosis,  of 
higher  knowledge.  Reuss  attributes  to  the  author  of  this  work  no  other 
aim  than  that  of  publishing  his  own  "  evangelical  theology  founded  on  the 
idea  of  the  divinity  of  the  Saviour  "  (p.  29).  Hilgenfeld,  as  we  have  seen, 
maintains  that  pseudo-John  wrote  in  order  to  raise  again  in  Asia  Minor 
the  standard  of  Paulinism,  which  had  been  overthrown  and  supplanted  by 
the  Judaic-Christianity  of  John.  According  to  Baur,  everything  is  ficti- 
tious, except  some  Synoptical  materials,  in  this  work  which  was  designed 
to  solve  all  the  burning  questions  of  the  second  century,  apparently  with- 
out touching  them.  The  author  brings  Gnosis  into  credit  in  the  Church 
by  introducing  the  theory  of  the  Logos  into  it;  he  moderates  the  Mon- 
tanist  exaltation ;  he  resolves  the  question  of  the  Passover  at  the  expense 
of  the  churches  of  Asia,  but  in  a  way  favorable  to  the  other  churches ;  he 
reconciles  the  two  parties — the  Pauline  and  the  Judaic-Christian;  and 
finally  succeeds  in  founding  the  one  and  universal  Church  after  which 
Christianity  aspired  from  its  origin  ;  he  consummates  the  apostolic  work. 

Our  task  is  to  examine  these  various  conceptions  and  to  discern  the 
portion  of  truth  or  of  error  which  each  one  of  them  may  contain. 

Our  Gospels  propose  to  themselves — all  four  of  them — a  single  aim, 
that  of  giving  rise  to  faith  and  strengthening  it,  by  presenting  to  it  histori- 
cally its  supreme  object,  Jesus  Christ.     But  each  one  does  this  in  its  own 

1  Keim  :  "The  evangelist  is  truly  much  too  *  Neue  Ilf/pothcse  iiber  die  vier  Evangdisten, 

great  to  pursue  the  historical  aim."  Lachmann's  ed.,  vol.  xi. 


212  BOOK   III.      THE  ORIGIN. 

way, — that  is  to  say,  each  one  presents  this  object  to  the  Church  under  a 

I  different  aspect.     Matthew  demonstrates,  with  a  view  to  the  Jews  and  by 

I  means  of  the  agreement  between  the  history  and  the  prophecies.     Luke 

expounds,  by  setting  forth  for  the  Gentiles  the  treasures  of  the  universal 

I  divine  grace.     Mark  depicts,  by  making  the  Wonderful  One  live  again  as 

I  the  witnesses  beheld  Him.     If  John  relates,  it  is  no  more  than  in  the  other 

cases,  merely  for  the  purpose. of  relating.     Altogether  like  the  others,  he 

relates  for  the  sake  of  strengthening  the  faith  of  the  Church,  first  in  the 

Messiahship,  then  in  the  divinity  of  Jesus.    This  is  what  he  declares  in  the 

often-quoted  passage  xx.  30,  31,  where  he  himself  gives  an  explanation 

respecting  the  aim  of  his  book:  to  show  in  Jesus  the  Messiah  {the  Christ) 

first,  and  then  the  Son  of  God,  to  the  end  that  every  one  may  find  in 

Him  eternal  life. 

This  declaration  indicates  nothing  else  than  that  historical  and  practical 
aim,  which  the  author  of  the  Muratorian  Fragment  implicitly  ascribes  to 
our  Gospel ;  and  its  contents  are  fully  confirmed  by  the  contents  of  the 
book  itself.  How,  indeed,  does  the  author  set  about  this?  He  relates 
the  history  of  the  development  of  his  own  faith  and  that  of  the  other 
apostles,  from  the  day  when  the  two  disciples  of  John  the  Baptist  recognized 
in  Jesus  the  Christ  (chap,  i.),  even  to  the  day  when  Thomas  worshiped 
Him  as  his  Lord  and  his  God  (chap.  xx.).  Here  are  the  starting-point 
and  the  goal.  The  narrative  included  between  these  two  limits  only  leads 
from  the  one  to  the  other ;  and  this  fact  alone  is  sufficient  to  enlighten 
us  with  respect  to  its  aim.  John  wishes  to  present  anew  for  his  readers 
the  path  which  his  own  faith  had  gone  over  in  the  company  of  Jesus  ;  he 
wishes  by  the  entire  series  of  facts  and  teachings  which  have  enlightened 
himself,  to  enlighten  the  Church ;  he  wishes  to  glorify  in  its  view  the 
divine  object  of  faith  by  the  same  means  by  Avhich  Jesus  was  glorified  to 
his  own  view :  by  beholding  and  hearing  the  Word  made  flesh.  In 
expressing  ourselves  thus,  we  do  nothing  but  paraphrase  the  words  of 
John  himself  at  the  beginning  of  his  first  epistle  (i.  1-4),  and  comment  upon 
that  expression  :  in  presence  of  his  disciples,  in  the  passage  of  the  Gospel 
where  he  explains  himself  respecting  his  aim  (xx.  30). 

But  by  reason  of  the  vety  fact  that  the  history  traced  by  him  was 
already  set  forth  in  three  works  which  he  possessed  and  which  his  readers 
possessed,  he  inevitably  places  himself  in  connection  with  those  earlier 
narratives.  And  herein  is  the  reason  why  he  gives  up  relating  the  totality 
of  the  facts,  as  if  his  redaction  were  the  first  or  the  only  one.  In  the 
declaration  xx.  30,  31,  he  expressly  reminds  us  of  the  fact  that  "  Jesus  did 
many  other  things  in  the  presence  of  His  disciples  which  are  not  written 
in  this  book."  It  is  natural  also,  as  a  consequence,  that  where  he  finds  in 
those  narratives  gaps  which  seem  to  him  of  some  importance,  he  should 
seek  to  supply  them,  or  that,  if  some  facts  do  not  seem  to  him  to  be 
presented  in  a  full  light,  he  should  endeavor  to  make  the  true  rays  fall 
upon  them.  As  we  have  said,  John  certainly  did  not  write  for  the  purpose 
of  completing,  but  he  often  completed  or  corrected,  in  passing,  and  without 
losing  sight  of  his  aim  :  to  display  the  earthly  glory  of  the  Son  of  God  to 


THE  OCCASION   AND   AIM  OF  THE   FOURTH  GOSPEL.        213 

the  view  of  faith.  It  is  thus  that  he  omits  the  Galilean  ministry,  abund- 
antly described  by  his  predecessors,  and  devotes  himself  particularly  to 
the  visits  to  Jerusalem,  where  the  glory  of  the  Lord  had  shone  forth  in 
an  indelible  manner  for  his  heart,  in  the  struggle  with  the  power  of 
darkness  concentrated  in  that  place.  This  intention  of  completing  the 
earlier  narratives,  whether  from  an  historical  point  of  view,  as  Eusebius 
thought,  or  in  a  more  spiritual  relation,  as  Clement  of  Alexandria  declared, 
is  therefore  perfectly  well-founded  in  fact;  we  mention  it  as  a  secondary 
aim  and,  to  express  it  in  a  better  way,  as  a  means  subservient  to  the  prin- 
cipal aim.  Reuss  thinks  that  this  combination  of  certain  secondary 
aims  with  the  principal  one  "  only  betrays  the  weakness  of  these  hypoth- 
eses." But  is  there  in  existence  a  single  historical  work,  which  really 
pursues  only  one  end,  and  which  does  not  allow  itself,  occasionally,  to 
work  towards  some  secondary  result  ?  Thiers,  surely,  did  not  write  the 
history  of  the  Consulate  and  the  Empire  with  the  purpose  of  complet- 
ing earlier  narratives.  But  will  he  refuse,  when  occasion  calls,  to  notice 
particularly  the  facts  which  his  predecessors  may  have  omitted,  or  to 
correct  those  which,  according  to  him,  have  been  presented  inexactly  or 
incompletely  ?  It  is  not,  then,  as  "  slaves  of  the  most  vulgar  patristic 
tradition  "  that  we  maintain,  as  Reuss  says,  "  so  sorry  a  thesis."1  It  is 
because  of  the  facts,  the  undeniable  facts,  respecting  which  Reuss  himself, 
in  his  last  work,  has  found  himself  at  length  compelled  to  open  his  eyes,2 
that  we  continue  to  maintain  this  view. 

We  persist  even  in  a  third  opinion,  no  less  opposed  to  the  view  of  this 
critic.  We  maintain  the  truth,  within  certain  limits,  of  the  polemic  aim 
attributed  to  our  Gospel  by  several  Fathers,  and  by  a  considerable  num- 
ber of  modern  scholars.  The  first  epistle  of  John  incontrovertibly  proves 
that  the  author  of  our  Gospel  lived  in  a  region  in  which  many  false  doc- 
trines had  already  arisen  in  the  bosom  of  the  Church.  We  are  perfectly 
in  accord  with  Keim  and  many  others  in  recognizing  that  the  principal 
heresy  combated  in  this  epistle  was  that  of  Cerinthus,  known  by  the 
Fathers  as  the  adversary  of  John  at  Ephesus.  He  taught  that  the  true 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  was  not  that  poor  Jew,  the  son  of  Joseph,  called 
Jesus,  who  had  died  on  the  cross,  bu  t  a  celestial  being  who  descended  upon 
Him  at  His  Baptism,  who  took  Him  temporarily  as  an  organ,  but  who  left 
Him  to  return  to  heaven  before  the  Passion.  Nothing  gives  a  better 
account,  than  this  teaching,  of  the  polemic  of  1  John  ii.  22 :  "  Who  is  a 
liar,  but  he  that  denieth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ?"  Comp.  also  iv.  1-3. 
Now,  can  it  be  denied  that  the  central  word  of  our  Gospel :  "  The  Word 
became  flesh  "  cuts  short  this  error  by  affirming,  together  with  the  fact 
of  the  incarnation,  the  organic  and  permanent  union  of  divinity  and 
humanity  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ?  This  same  expression  set  aside, 
on  the  one  hand,  the  ordinary  heresy  of  the  Ebionites,  who,  without  fall- 
ing into  the  subtleties  of  Cerinthus,  simply  denied  the  divinity  of  Christ, 
and,  on  the  other,  the  Gnostic  error,  perhaps  existing  already  in  some,  of 

*  Hist,  de  la  thiol,  chretienne,  II.  p.  312.  *See  the  note  quoted,  p.  75. 


214  BOOK   III.      THE  ORIGIN. 

a  divine  Christ  who  had  assumed  nothing  of  humanity  but  the  appear- 
ance. John  thus  placed  a  rock  in  the  midst  of  the  Church  against  which 
the  waves  of  the  most  opposite  false  doctrines  would  have  to  break. 
This  was  an  indirect  polemic,  the  only  one  which  was  in  harmony  with  an 
historical  work,  but  one  to  which  the  more  direct  polemic  of  the  epistle 
gave  completeness  and  precise  definition. 

This  epistle  of  John  also  does  not  allow  us  to  deny,  in  certain  passages 
of  the  Gospel,  the  intention  to  repel  the  claims  of  the  disciples  of  John 
the  Baptist,  who  from  the  first  were  ranked  among  the  adversaries  of 
the  Lord.  Where  the  apostle  says,  1  Ep.  v.  G :  "  This  is  He  that  came 
by  water  and  blood,  even  Jesus  Christ ;  not  by  water  only,  but  by  water 
and  blood,"  is  it  not  beyond  dispute  that  he  means  to  set  aside  the  pre- 
tended Messiahship  of  John  the  Baptist,  whom  his  disciples  announced  as 
the  Christ,  though  he  had  offered  to  the  world  only  the  symbolic  purifica- 
tion of  the  baptism  of  water,  and  not  the  real  purification  through  the 
expiatory  blood?  If  from  this  evidently  polemical  passage  we  come  back 
to  the  declarations  of  the  Gospel :  "  He  [John]  was  not  the  light ;  but  he  came 
to  bear  witness  to  the  light  "  (i.  8);  "  Who  art  thou  ?  "  "And  he  confessed 
and  denied  not,  but  confessed :  I  am  not  the  Christ "  (i.  19,  20) ;  "  And  his 
disciples  came  to  him  and  said  unto  him  :  Behold,  He  to  whom  thou 
hast  borne  witness,  He  baptizeth !  .  .  .  John  answered  :  Ye  are  my  wit- 
nesses that  I  said  unto  you  :  I  am  not  the  Christ "  (iii.  26-28),— it  will 
be  necessary  for  us,  nevertheless,  to  yield  to  the  evidence  and  acknowl- 
edge that  John  had  in  view  in  these  words  and  these  stories  early  dis- 
ciples of  the  forerunner  who,  impelled  by  jealous  hatred  of  Christ  and 
of  the  Gospel,  went  so  far  as  to  pronounce  their  old  master  to  be  the 
Messiah.1 

The  polemic  aim,  as  a  secondary  aim,  seems  to  us,  therefore,  to  be 
justified  by  the  facts.  And  what,  indeed,  could  be  more  natural  ?  When 
we  establish  a  truth,  especially  a  truth  of  the  first  importance,  we  estab- 
lish it  for  itself,  surely,  and  in  consideration  of  its  intrinsic  importance ; 
but  not  without  desiring  to  set  aside,  at  the  same  time,  the  errors  which 
might  supplant  it  or  paralyze  its  beneficent  effects. 

There  is  but  one  aim,  among  those  which  have  been  pointed  out,  which 
we  find  ourselves  forced  to  exclude  absolutely ;  it  is— we  repeat  it  to  the 
great  offence  of  Reuss — the  speculative  aim,  the  only  one  which  this  critic 
allows.  Let  us  explain.  In  the  opinion  of  Reuss  and  many  others,  the 
fourth  Gospel  is  intended  to  cause  a  new  theory  to  prevail  in  the  Church 
respecting  the  person  of  Jesus,  which  the  author  had  personally  formed 
through  identifying  Christ  with  the  divine  Logos,  with  which  he  had 
become  acquainted  through  the  teaching  of  the  Alexandrian  philosophy. 
We  have  shown  that  the  facts,  when  seriously  inquired  into,  are  not  in 

»  Apollos  (Acta  xviii.)  and  the  twelve  disci-  towards  Jesus;  there  are  also  facts  reported 

pies  of  John  (Acts  xix.)  did  not  go  as  far  as  by  the  Synoptics;  comp.  Matt.  ix.  14  and  the 

this,  surely.    But  it  is  not  only  the  fact  re-  parallels,  and  perhaps  even  xi.  2  ff.,  since  the 

lated  in  John  iii.  25  ff.,  which  shows  us  the  disciples    mast,  by  their  statements,  have 

secret  hatred  of  a  part  of  John's  disciples,  called  forth  that  procedure  on  John's  part. 


THE   OCCASION   AND   AIM   OF  THE   FOURTH   GOSPEL.         215 

accord  with  this  view,  which,  moreover,  contradicts  the  author's  own 
declaration  (xx.  30,  31).  For  in  that  passage  he  does  not  speak  of  his 
intention  to  elevate  faith  to  the  condition  of  speculative  knowledge,  but 
simply  of  his  desire  to  strengthen  faith  itself  by  presenting  to  it  its  object, 
Jesus  the  Messiah  and  Son  of  God,  in  His  fullness  and  conformably  to  all 
the  signs  by  which  He  had  caused  His  matchless  glory  to  shine  forth  in 
His  own  presence  and  in  that  of  His  disciples.  There  is  no  place  in  such 
a  programme  for  a  Christ  who  is  only  the  fruit  of  the  metaphysical  specu- 
lations of  the  evangelist.  Moreover,  faith  is  never,  in  our  Gospel,  any- 
thing  else  than  the  assimilation  of  the  testimony  (i.  7)  ;  and  the  testimony 
relates  to  an  historical  fact,  not  to  an  idea.  We  may  easily  picture  to  I 
ourselves  Thiers  writing  the  history  of  Napoleon  with  the  design  of  dis- 
playing the  greatness  of  his  hero  ;  we  may  also  picture  him  to  ourselves 
as  occasionally  completing  and  correcting  the  narratives  preceding  his 
own,  or  as  indirectly  justifying  the  political  and  financial  measures  of  the 
great  Monarch,  by  alluding  to  false  theories  which  were  spread  abroad 
respecting  these  questions.  But  what  the  historian  certainly  would  never 
have  done,  would  be  to  make  use  of  the  person  of  his  hero  as  a  mouth- 
piece for  disseminating  in  the  world  any  theory  whatever  which  pertained 
to  himself,  and  to  attribute  to  him  with  this  aim  acts  which  he  had  not 
performed  or  discourses  which  he  had  never  spoken.1 

To  the  end  of  confirming  the  theological  and  speculative  aim  attributed 
by  him  to  our  Gospel,  Reuss  asks  "  if  this  is  not  the  book  which  served 
as  the  foundation  and  starting  point  for  the  formulas  of  Nicaea  and  Chal- 
cedon"  (p.  33).  I  answer:  No;  for  the  subject  of  those  formulas  was  not 
the  texts  of  John.  It  was  the  fact  itself  of  the  incarnation,  of  the  union 
of  the  divine  and  human  in  the  person  of  Christ,  respecting  the  mode  of- 
which  an  understanding  was  sought  for.  Now,  this  fact  is  not  taught  only 
in  the  fourth  Gospel.  It  is  taught,  as  we  have  seen,  in  the  Epistles  of  St. 
Paul  (Col.  i.,  Phil,  ii.,  1  Cor.  viii.  and  x.,  etc.),  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
(chaps,  i.  and  ii.),  in  the  Apocalypse,  in  the  Synoptics  themselves.  The 
Johannean  Gospel  has  discovered  the  expression  which  best  sets  forth  the 
union  of  the  divine  and  human  in  Christ ;  but  that  union  itself  forms  the 
basis  of  all  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament.  It  was  not,  therefore,  the 
fourth  Gospel,  it  was  the  Christian  fact,  which  constrained  the  Fathers  of 
Nicaea  and  Chalcedon  to  search  out  formulas  fitted  to  give  an  account  of 

1  In  my  first  edition  (I.,  p.  140),  I  expressed  self  to  teach;  the  sole  question  is  whether 
myself  as  follows:  "The  only  aim  which  is  this  instructive  narrative  had  as  its  aim  to 
positively  excluded  by  what  we  have  just  confirm  faith,  as  he  claims  himself  and  as  I 
gathered  from  the  author's  declaration  (xx.  claim  also,  or  was  made  with  a  view  to  satisfy 
30,  31),  is  the  speculative  or  didactic  aim,  the  the  iuide7Standing.  To  suppress  these  last 
design  of  satisfying  the  understanding  by  words,  is  to  render  my  thought  unreeogniza- 
giving  to  Christian  dogma  a  new  develop-  hie  and  absurd.  In  my  second  edition,  I  had 
ment."  Reuss  quotes  this  statement,  sup-  already,  to  avoid  all  that  was  equivocal,  en- 
pressing  the  words :  "The  intention  of  8atis-  tirely  suppressed  in  this  sentence  the  term 
ft/ing  the  understanding."  Now  it  is  precisely  didactic,  and  said:  "The  only  aim  excluded 
these  omitted  words  which  explained  what  I  .  .  .,  is  the  philosophical  or  speculative  aim." 
here  understood  by  a  didactic  aim.  It  is  very  (I.,  p.  3C0). 
clear  that  in  narrating  John  proposed  to  him- 


216  BOOK   III.      THE  ORIGIN. 

this  contrast,  which  makes  the  supreme  grandeur  of  Christianity,  at  the 
same  time  that  it  is  its  greatest  mystery.1 

I  take  pleasure  in  closing  the  study  of  this  subject  with  the  following 
lines  from  B.  Weiss,  in  which  I  find  my  own  opinion  fully  expressed : 
"  To  set  forth  the  glory  of  the  divine  Logos  as  he  had  beheld  it  in  the 
earthly  life  of  Jesus  (i.  14),  as  it  had  more  and  more  magnificently  revealed 
itself  in  conflict  with  unbelieving  and  hostile  Judaism,  and  as  it  had  led 
receptive  souls  to  a  faith  ever  more  firm,  to  a  contemplation  ever  more 
blessed, — this  is  what  the  evangelist  desires.  This  fundamental  idea  of 
the  narrative  is  in  no  degree  detrimental  to  its  historical  character,  because 
it  is  derived  from  the  facts,  themselves  which  had  been  a  living  experience 
to  the  author,  and  because  he  confines  himself  to  the  demonstration  of 
their  realization  in  the  history." 2 

Soon  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  the  Apostle  John,  freed  from 
all  duty  to  his  own  people,  came  to  Asia  Minor  to  settle  there.  There  the 
magnificent  plantations  which  were  due  to  the  labors  of  the  Apostle  Paul 
were  flourishing.  But  the  prophecy  of  that  same  apostle  :  "  I  know  that 
after  my  departure  grievous  wolves  shall  enter  in  among  you,  not  sparing 
the  flock  "  (Acts  xx.  29),  began  to  be  fulfilled.  An  apostolic  hand  was 
needed  to  direct  these  churches.  Around  Ephesus  was  spread  out  the 
fairest  field  of  Christian  labor.  We  have  already  said,  with  a  great  writer  : 
"  The  centre  of  gravity  Of  the  Church  was  no  longer  in  Jerusalem ;  it  was 
not  yet  in  Rome ;  it  was  in  Ephesus."  Moreover,  this  city  was  not  only 
the  great  commercial  entrepot  between  Asia  and  Europe,  but  also  the 
centre  of  a  rich  and  active  intellectual  exchange  between  the  religious  and 
philosophical  movements  of  the  Orient  and  occidental  culture.  It  was 
the  rendezvous  of  the  orators  of  all  schools,  of  the  partisans  of  all  systems. 

On  such  a  theatre  the  Palestinian  apostle  must  have  grown  "daily,  not, 
doubtless,  in  the  knowledge  of  the  person  and  work  of  Jesus,  but  in  the 
understanding  of  the  manifold  relations,  sympathetic  or  hostile,  between 
the  Gospel  and  the  different  tendencies  of  human  philosophy.  Those 
Christian  populations  to  which  St.  Paul  had  opened  the  way  of  salvation 
by  instructing  them  with  respect  to  the  contrast  between  the  state  of  sin 
and  the  state  of  grace,  and  by  showing  them  the  means  of  passing  from 
the  one  to  the  other,  John  noW  introduced  into  the  full  knowledge  of  the 

» We  do  not  return  here  to  the  aims  set  having  kept  himself  at  this  artificial  eleva- 

forth  by  Baur  and  Hilgenfeld.  We  think  that  tion,  when  he  was  no  longer  able  to  continue 

the  remarks,  pp.  205  ff.,  may  be  sufficient.  thus  he  sought  death,  and  the  one  who  aided 

*  Introduction  to  the  Commentary  on  the  Gos-  him  in  the  realization  of  this  desire,  and 

pel  of  John,  p.  41.   Among  the  recent  hypoth-  became  accessory  to  this  last  act  of  his  lifo 

eses,  we  will  further  indicate,  as  an  especially  was— Judas.    He  was  the  disciple  whom  Jesus 

curious  specimen,  the  system  set  forth  by  loved;  he  was  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel, 

Noack   in   his  work:    Aus  dcr  Jordan-Wiege  which  was  afterwards   changed,  but   whoso 

nach  Golgotha,  1870:  Jesus,  the  son  of  Mary  primitive  sense    Noack   has  re-established, 

and  a  Samaritan  soldier,  even  in  consequence  Jesus  died  on  Gerizim  whither  he  had  retired 

of  this  dishonorable  birth,  came  to  regard  with  his  seven  disciples,  and  where,  by  the 

God  as  his  father.    He  lived  in  a  continual  aid  of  Judas,  he  fell  into  the  hands  of  his 

state  of  ecstasy  which  he  maintained  by  fac-  enemies  and  was  set  free  from  life, 
titious  means,— fasting,  for  example.    After 


THE  OCCASION  AND   AIM   OF  THE   FOURTH   GOSPEL.        217 

person  of  the  Saviour  Himself;  he  spread  out  hefore  their  eyes  a  great 
number  of  striking  facts  which,  for  one  reason  or  another,  tradition  had 
left  in  obscurity,  and  many  sublime  teachings  which  had  been  deeply 
engraved  on  his  heart,  and  which  he  alone  had  preserved;  he  described 
the  relations,  full  of  love  and  condescension,  which  the  Lord  had  sustained 
towards  His  own  friends,  and  the  proofs  which  He  had  given  them,  in 
their  intimate  association,  of  His  divine  greatness  and  His  filial  relation  to 
the  Father.  All  these  elements  of  the  knowledge  of  Christ,  which  he 
brought  with  him,  gain  a  new  value  through  the  connection  in  which  they 
were  placed,  in  such  a  region,  with  the  speculations  of  all  sorts  which 
were  there  current. 

The  day  came,  after  many  years  no  doubt,  when  the  churches  said  to 
themselves  that  the  apostle,  who  was  the  depositary  of  such  treasures, 
would  not  live  always,  and  did  not  belong  to  them  alone ;  and,  measuring 
the  distance  between  the  teaching  which  they  had  enjoyed  and  that  which 
they  found  recorded  in  the  existing  Gospels,  they  requested  John  to  com- 
mit to  writing  what  he  had  related  to  them.  He  consented,  and  he  opened 
his  work  with  a  preamble  in  which,  putting  his  narrative  in  connection 
with  the  efforts  of  human  wisdom  of  which  he  was  daily  a  witness,  he 
fixed  with  a  firm  hand  the  central  fact  of  the  evangelical  history,  the 
incarnation,  and  reminded  every  reader  of  the  vital  importance  of  the 
history  which  he  was  about  to  read  :  The  Christ,  the  subject  of  this  narra-  | 
tive,  would  be  for  him  life — as  for  the  disciples — if  he  received  Him ;  death 
— as  for  the  Jews — if  he  rejected  Him  (John  i.  1-18). 

At  a  later  time,  the  first  Epistle  of  the  same  apostle  proceeded  from  his 
apostolic  working  in  the  same  churches,  in  which  writing  he  addresses 
himself  as  a  father  to  mature  man,  to  young  men  and  to  children,  and  in  ' 
which  he  makes  allusion  in  the  very  first  lines  to  the  testimony  which  he 
bears  unceasingly  among  them  respecting  that  great  fact  of  the  incarna- 
tion which  he  has,  as  it  were,  seen  with  his  eyes  and  handled  with  his  hands. 
Some  have  been  disposed  to  find  in  ver.  4:  "And  we  write  unto  you" 
(comp.  ii.  14,  21,  26,  etc.),  an  allusion  to  the  composition  and  sending  of 
the  Gospel.  We  do  not  think  that  we  are  authorized  by  the  context  to 
apply  these  expressions  to  any  other  work  than  the  epistle  itself. 

The  two  small  epistles  were  issued  in  the  same  surroundings.  They  seem 
to  us,  indeed,  to  belong  to  the  same  author.  Independently  of  the  iden- 
tity of  style,  what  other  person  than  John  could  have  designated  himself 
simply  by  this  title:  The  Elder  (6  irpeafivrepog),  without  adding  to  it  his 
name  ?  An  official  presbyter  of  the  Church  of  Ephesus  could  not  have 
done  this,  since  he  had  colleagues,  elders  as  well  as  himself;  and  if  this 
word  is  taken  here  in  the  sense  which  it  has  in  the  fragment  of  Papias: 
an  immediate  disciple  of  the  Lord,  no  other  than  the  Apostle  John  could 
appropriate  to  himself  this  name  in  so  absolute  a  way  and  as  an  exclusive 
title. 

Finally,  it  was  no  doubt  still  later,  during  a  temporary  exile  and  under 
the  impression  of  the  recent  persecution  by  Domitian,  that  John  composed 
his  last  work :  the  Apocalypse,  in  which,  beholding,  as  if  from  the  summit 


218  BOOK   III.      THE  ORIGIN. 

of  a  mountain,  the  century  which  had  passed  away  and  those  which  were 
to  follow,  he  completes  the  idea  of  the  Christ  come  by  that  of  the  Christ 
:  coming  again,  and  prepares  the  Church  for  the  prolonged  conflicts  and  for 
the  final  crisis  which  are  to  precede  His  return.1 

One  fact  is  fitted  to  excite  the  reflection  of  thinking  men.  St.  Paul,  the 
founder  of  the  churches  of  Asia  Minor,  cannot  fail  to  have  left  his  type  of 
doctrine  deeply  impressed  on  the  life  of  those  churches.  And  yet  the 
Pauline  imprint  is,  as  it  were,  effaced  in  all  the  theological  literature  of 
Asia  Minor  in  the  second  century.  And  this  disappearance  is  by  no  means 
the  effect  of  a  weakening,  of  a  decay :  there  is  a  substitution.  There  is  the 
appearance  of  a  new  imprint,  of  equal  dignity  at  least  with  that  which  pre- 
ceded it, — the  trace  of  another  influence  no  less  Christian,  but  of  a  different 
character.  Another  equally  powerful  personality  has  passed  that  way,  and 
given  a  peculiar  and  altogether  new  stamp  to  the  Christian  life  and  thought 
of  those  countries.  This  phenomenon  is  the  more  remarkable,  since  the 
history  of  the  Church  of  the  West  presents  an  entirely  opposite  one.  Here 
the  Pauline  type  continues;  it  reigns  without  a  rival  even  to  the  third  and 
fourth  centuries ;  it  is  found  anew  at  every  moment  in  the  conflicts  of  a 
purely  anthropological  character  which  agitate  this  portion  of  the  Church. 
And  when  it  is  gradually  effaced,  it  is  not  in  order  to  give  place  to  another 
quite  as  elevated,  quite  as  spiritual,  but  it  is  by  a  way  of  gradual  enfeeble- 
ment  and  a  process  of  growing  materialization  and  ritualism. 

This  grand  fact  ought  to  be  sufficient  to  prove  that  the  two  Johannean 
books,  which  are  the  documents  of  the  new  type  impressed  on  the  churches 
of  Asia — the  fourth  Gospel  and  the  first  Epistle — are  not  the  works  of  a 
Christian  of  second  rank,  of  some  unknown  disciple,  but  that  they  proceed 
from  one  of  the  peers  of  the  apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  from  one  of  those 
disciples  who  had  drunk  from  the  first  source,  from  an  immediate  and 
peculiarly  intimate  heir  of  Christ. 

We  well  understand  what  stays  a  certain  number  of  excellent  minds,  at 
the  moment  of  closing  in  the  tribunal  of  their  own  consciousness  the  acts 
of  this  great  process  by  a  decision  favorable  to  the  apostolic  origin  of  our 
Gospel.  They  are  afraid  that,  by  recognizing  in  Christ  the  appearance  of 
a  divine  being,  they  will  lose  from  Him  the  true  man.  This  anxiety  will 
vanish  "away  as  soon  as  they  shall  have  substituted  for  the  traditional  no- 
tion of  the  incarnation  the  true  Biblical  notion  of  that  supreme  fact.  From 
the  truly  Scriptural  point  of  view,  indeed,  there  are  not  in  Christ  two  oppo- 
site and  contradictory  modes  of  being,  which  move  together  side  by  side  in 
one  and  the  same  person.  What  the  apostles  show  us  in  Him  is  a  human 
mode  of  existence  substituted,  by  the  voluntary  humiliation  of  the  Saviour 
of  men,  for  His  divine  mode  of  existence,— then  transformed,  by  a  holy 
and  normal  development,  in  such  a  way  as  to  be  able  to  serve  as  an  organ 
for  the  divine  life  and  to  realize  the  original  glory  of  the  Son  of  God.  And 
let  us  not  forget  that  this  transformation  of  our  human  existence  into  a 

1  See,  for  the  reasons  which  do  not  allow  us  than  this,  my  Etudes  bibliques,  3d  ed.,  vol.  II, 
to  place  the  writing  of  tho  Apocalypse  earlier       pp.  325-330. 


THE  OCCASION  AND  AIM  OF  THE   FOURTH  GOSPEL.        219 

glorified  humanity  is  not  accomplished  in  Christ  alone  ;  it  is  accomplished 
in  Him  only  to  the  end  of  its  realization  through  Him  in  all  those  who 
unite  themselves  to  Him  by  faith:  "To  all  who  received  Him  gave  he 
the  power  to  become  children  of  God,  even  to  those  who  believe  on  His 
name;  and  [indeed]  the  Word  became  flesh"  (i.  13,  14).  If  the  Son  for 
a  time  abandons  the  divine  condition  in  order  to  descend  into  our  human 
mode  of  being,  it  is  to  impel  us  to  that  upward  movement  which,  from  the 
day  of  His  incarnation,  He  impresses,  even  in  His  own  person,  upon  the 
history  of  humanity,  which  He  communicates,  from  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
to  all  believers,  and  the  end  of  which  is  to  be  :  God  all  in  all,  as  its  starting- 
point  was  :  God  all  in  one. 

The  domain  of  being  passes  infinitely  beyond  that  of  thought — not  of 
absolute  thought,  but  of  ours.  Do  we  not  see,  even  in  our  human  life 
which  is  so  limited,  the  inspirations  of  love  outrunning  infinitely  the  cal- 
culations of  the  understanding  ?  How  much  more  when  the  question  is 
of  the  inspirations  of  the  divine  love  as  related  to  the  thoughts  of  the 
human  mind. 

To  accept  the  living  gift  of  eternal  love  by  letting  it  descend  through 
faith  into  the  sphere  of  human  life,  is  to  accomplish  three  equally  salutary 
things.  It  is  to  dethrone  man  in  his  own  heart ;  for  the  Son  of  God,  by 
voluntarily  humbling  Himself,  impels  us  to  the  sacrifice  of  self  (Phil.  ii.  5 
ff.).  It  is  to  open  heaven  to  him ;  for  such  a  gift  is  an  indissoluble  bond 
between  the  heart  of  God  and  that  of  every  man  who  accepts  it.  It  is  to 
make  the  believer  the  eternal  dwelling-place  of  God;  for  Christ  in  him  is 
God  in  him.     By  this  means,  God  reigns. 

But  suppress  this  gift  by  refusing  or  lessening  it, — and  this  is  the  end  for 
which  those  are  laboring  who  make  the  fourth  Gospel  a  theological  treat- 
ise instead  of  a  history, — the  human  sphere  shuts  in  again  upon  itself; 
immediately  man  raises  himself  erect ;  he  feeds  no  longer  upon  anything 
except  himself;  God  withdraws.  Man  assumes  the  throne  and  reigns 
here  on  earth. 

The  thought  of  the  gift  of  the  only-begotten  Son  is  not  the  fruit  of 
human  speculation ;  it  bears  in  itself  the  seal  of  its  divine  origin.  God 
alone  can  have  had  this  thought,  because  God  alone  can  love  thus. 

Let  us  enter  now,  with  this  certainty,  upon  the  study  of  the  pages  in 
which  this  great  fact  of  the  divine  love  has  been  distinctly  revealed  on 
earth ;  and  may  those  pages  themselves  speak  with  a  louder  voice  than 
any  pleader,  and  the  moment  come  when  they  shall  no  more  need  an 
advocate ! 


INTRODUCTION. 


After  the  General  Introduction  contained  in  the  first  part  of  this  volume, 
it  only  remains  for  us,  in  the  Special  Introduction  to  the  Commentary,  to 
treat  of  the  plan  of  the  Gospel  and  of  the  most  important  documents  in 
which  the  text  of  this  writing  has  been  preserved  to  us. 


CHAPTER  FIRST. 

THE  PLAN  OF  THE  GOSPEL. 


There  is  a  marked  difference  between  the  exegesis  of  the  Fathers  and 
modern  works  on  the  Gospel  of  John.  With  the  former  the  thought  of  a 
plan,  of  a  systematic  arrangement,  seems  almost  to  have  no  existence, 
so  completely  is  the  historical  character  of  the  story  assumed.  The  nar- 
rative is  regarded  as  the  simple  reproduction  of  the  history.  It  is  no 
longer  so  in  the  modern  conception.  The  agency  of  a  governing  idea  is 
made  to  appear  in  the  story.  According  to  the  view  of  which  Baur's 
work  is  still  the  most  remarkable  expression,  the  idea  plays  even  so  deci- 
sive a  part  in  this  evangelical  composition,  that  it  not  only  determines  its 
arrangement,  but  furnishes  the  substance  of  the  story  so  far  that,  accord- 
ing to  this  critic,  fact,  as  such,  is  almost  annihilated,  and  that  the  allegori- 
cal exposition,  the  name  of  which  until  now  recalled  the  worst  days  of 
exegesis,  is  again  become  the  true  method  of  interpretation.  The  fourth 
Gospel,  a  thoroughly  systematic  work,  is  as  independent  of  real  history  as 
the  Ethics  of  Spinoza  can  be  of  sensible  reality. 

This  reversal  of  the  point  of  view  has  been  brought  about  gradually. 
The  works  of  Lampe,  de  Wette,  Schweizer  and  Baur  seem  to  me  to  be  the 
noteworthy  points  in  this  scientific  elaboration.1 

Lampe  was  the  first,  according  to  Liicke,  to  propose  a  general  division 
of  the  Gospel.    It  was  still  very  imperfect.    Placed  between  a  prologue 

»  For  this  exposition  we  are  much  indebted  to  the  work  of  Luthardt,  Das  Joh.  Evang.  2d  ed., 
i.  p.  200-222. 

221 


222  INTRODUCTION. 

(i.  1-18)  and  an  epilogue  (xx.  30-xxi.  25),  the  narrative  is  subdivided  into 
two  parts :  A.  The  public  ministry  of  the  Lord,  i.  19-xii.  50.  B.  The  last 
acts  of  His  life,  xiii.  1-xx.  29.  Lampe  had  thus  put  his  finger  on  one  of 
the  principal  articulations  of  the  Gospel.  All  those  who,  since  his  day, 
have  effaced  the  line  of  division  between  ch.  xii.  and  xiii.  seem  to  me  to 
have  retrograded  in  the  understanding  of  John's  work. 

Eichhorn  made  no  change  in  this  division.  He  merely  designated  the 
two  principal  parts  of  the  narrative  in  a  different  way :  1.  The  first,  i. 
19-xii.  50,  proves  that  Jesus  is  the  promised  Messiah;  2.  The  second, 
xiii.-xx.,  contains  the  account  of  the  last  days  of  His  life.  Here  was  no 
real  improvement.  What  Eichhorn  indicates  as  the  contents  of  the  first 
twelve  chapters  is  really  applicable  only  to  the  first  four ;  and  the  subjects 
of  the  two  parts,  thus  designated,  are  not  logically  co-ordinate  with  each 
other. 

Before  Eichhorn,  Bengel 1  had  attempted  to  found  the  division  of  the 
Gospel  on  another  principle.  After  having  ingenious^  marked  the  cor- 
respondence between  the  initial  week  (i.  19— ii.  11)  and  the  final  week 
(xii.  1-xx.  31),  he  divided  the  intermediate  history  according  to  the  jour- 
neys to  the  feasts:  Passover,  ii.  13;  Pentecost  (according  to  Bengel)  v. 
1 ;  Tabernacles,  vii.  2.  But  this  arrangement  evidently  rests  on  a  too  ex- 
ternal order  of  events;  since  it  has  the  disadvantage  of  effacing  the  divi- 
sion, distinctly  marked  by  the  Evangelist  himself  and  already  pointed  out 
by  Lampe,  between  chs.  xii.  and  xiii. 

Bengel  was,  nevertheless,  followed  by  Olshausen,  who  assumed,  accord- 
ing to  this  principle  of  division,  the  following  four  parts;  1.  i.-vi. ;  2. 
vii.-xi. ;  3.  xii.-xvii. ;  4.  xviii.-xxi.  Liicke  himself,  in  his  first  two 
editions,  despaired  of  reaching  a  more  profound  plan,  and  contented 
himself  with  endeavoring  to  improve  the  division  which  is  founded  on 
this  principle. 

De  Wette,  first  of  all,  discerned  and  set  forth  the  unfolding  of  a  single 
idea  in  our  Gospel.  The  glory  of  Christ, — such  is,  according  to  him,  the 
central  thought  of  the  entire  work :  1.  The  first  chapter  sets  forth  the 
idea  in  a  summary  way  ; — 2.  The  first  part  of  the  narrative  (ii.-xii.)  ex- 
hibits it  to  us  as  translated  into  action  in  the  ministry  of  Jesus,  and  that : 
A,  by  particular  examples  (ii.-vi.)  ;  B,  by  the  preparation  of  the  catastro- 
phe during  the  last  sojournings  of  Jesus  in  Judea  (vii.— xii.) ; — 3.  The 
glory  of  the  Lord  manifests  itself  in  all  its  splendor  in  the  second  part  of 
the  narrative  (xiii.-xx.),  and  that :  A,  inwardly  and  morally,  in  His  suf- 

i  Gnomon,  N.  T.,  1742. 


PLAN  OF  THE  GOSPEL.  223 

ferings  and  death   (xiii.-xix.) ;  and  B,  outwardly  and   sensibly,  by  the 
triumphant  fact  of  His  resurrection  (xx.). 

This  grand  and  beautiful  conception,  by  means  of  which  de  Wette  has 
certainly  made  an  epoch  in  the  understanding  of  our  Gospel,  governed 
exegesis  for  a  certain  period.  Lucke  yielded  to  its  influence  in  his  third 
edition ;  but  he  introduced  into  this  plan  a  subdivision  which  must  not 
be  lost  sight  of.  It  is  the  separation  between  chs.  iv.  and  v.  Until  ch.  iv., 
indeed,  the  opposition  to  Jesus  does  not  become  distinctly  noticeable. 
From  ch.  v.,  onward  it  is  the  governing  element  in  the  narrative,  and  goes 
on  increasing  up  to  ch.  xii. 

Baumgarten-Crusius,  taking  advantage  of  the  conception  of  de  Wette 
and  of  the  subdivision  introduced  by  Lucke,  presented  the  following  ar- 
rangement :  1.  The  works  of  Christ,  i.— iv. ;  2.  His  struggles,  v.-xii. ;  3.  Hia 
moral  victory,  xiii.-xix. ;  4.  His  final  glory,  xx.  This  was  de  Wette'sidea, 
better  formulated  than  it  had  been  by  de  Wette  himself.  It  was  the  first 
altogether  rational  division  of  the  entire  contents  of  our  Gospel.  Almost 
all  the  principal  articulations  of  the  narrative  were  established  and 
pointed  out :  that  between  chs.  iv.  and  v. ;  that  between  chs.  xii.  and  xiii. ; 
finally,  that  between  xix.  and  xx. 

This  division,  however,  only  took  account  of  the  divine  and  objective 
factor  of  the  narrative,  if  we  may  so  speak, — Christ  and  His  manifestation. 
But  there  is  another  element  in  John's  narration,  the  human,  subjective 
factor — the  conduct  of  men  towards  the  Lord  on  occasion  of  His  reve- 
lation, the  faith  of  some  and  the  unbelief  of  others. 

Alexander  Schweizer  demanded  a  place  for  this  human  element  in  the 
arrangement  of  the  narrative.  He  accorded  to  it  even  the  decisive  part, 
and  this  while  especially  laying  emphasis  on  the  side  of  unbelief.  He 
adopted  the  following  plan,  which  brings  out  precisely  the  leading  articu- 
lations that  we  have  just  indicated.  1.  The  struggle  makes  itself  known 
in  the  distance ;  i.-iv. ;  2.  It  breaks  forth  in  all  its  violence,  v.-xii. ;  3.  The 
denouement,  xiii.-xx.  Understood  in  this  way  the  Gospel  becomes 
a  drama,  and  assumes  a  tragic  interest.  But  in  the  conduct  of  men 
towards  the  Lord,  unbelief  is  only  one  side.  Does  not  the  element  of  faith 
remain  too  much  in  the  background  in  this  conception  of  Schweizer  ? 
The  factor  thus  neglected  could  not  fail  to  obtain  its  revenge. 

Before  coming  to  this  point  which  was  easy  to  be  foreseen,  we  ought  to 
mention  some  remarkable  works  which  appear  to  us  to  connect  them- 
selves, if  not  historically,  at  least  in  principle,  with  the  points  of  view 
already  indicated.    Like  de  Wette  and  Baumgarten-Crusius,  Reuss  makes 


224  INTRODUCTION. 

the  general  arrangement  of  the  Gospel  rest  upon  the  revelation  of  Christ.1 
He  assumes  three  parts :  1.  Jesus  reveals  Himself  to  the  world,  i.-xii. ;  (A) 
first,  enrolling,  i.-iv. ;  (B)  then,  selecting,  v.-xii.  2.  He  reveals  Himself  to 
His  own,  xiii.-xvii.,  endeavoring  to  cause  the  speculative  ideas,  expressed 
in  a  dogmatic  or  polemical  form  in  the  first  part,  to  penetrate  their  hearts, 
and  to  transmute  these  ideas  into  their  inmost  life.  Up  to  this  point  the 
order  is  logical,  and  in  this  brief  form  of  words  are  comprehended  many  of 
the  ideas  fitted  to  throw  light  upon  the  progress  of  the  work  of  Christ  in  our 
Gospel.  But  here  a  difficulty  presents  itself,  which  arises  from  the  gen- 
eral point  of  view  at  which  Reuss  takes  his  stand  with  regard  to  the  work 
of  John ;  the  rational  division  is  exhausted.  There  is  no  third  term 
which  can  be  logically  placed  beside  the  world  and  the  believers.  And  yet 
the  Gospel  is  not  ended,  and  a  place  must  be  assigned  to  the  three  chap- 
ters which  still  remain.  Reuss  makes  of  them  a  third  part,  which  he 
entitles :  "  The  denouement  of  the  two  relations  previously  established ;" 
xviii.-xx.  It  is  difficult  to  understand  how  the  narrative  of  the  death  and 
resurrection  of  Christ  can  undo  the  knot  formed  by  the  twofold  relation 
of  Jesus  to  the  world  and  believers.  Here  is  the  reply  of  this  author : 
"  In  that  Jesus  remains  dead  for  the  unbelievers,  and  rises  victorious  for 
the  believers."  If  in  a  matter  of  this  kind  a  clever  phrase  were  sufficient, 
one  might  declare  oneself  satisfied.  But  can  Reuss  be  so  himself?  Must 
he  not  perceive  that  this  purely  historical  denouement  is  not  consistent 
with  a  speculative  Gospel,  an  ideal  work  such  as  his  Gospel  of  John  is  ? 
By  this  course  we  must  reach  the  point  of  seeing  in  these  last  historical 
facts  nothing  but  a  religion  or  a  system  of  ethics  in  action.  And  indeed 
how  does  Reuss  close  his  analysis  of  the  Gospel?  By  these  words:  "It 
is  thus  that  the  history,  even  to  the  end,  is  the  mirror  of  religious  truths." 
What !  the  events  of  the  death  and  resurrection  of  the  Saviour  placed  in 
the  same  rank  with  the  metaphysics  of  John !  But  there  remains  no 
other  way  for  Reuss  to  make  of  the  Gospel  a  homogeneous  whole,  and 
logically  to  co-ordinate  the  third  part  with  the  two  others.  We  see  at 
what  a  price  this  higher  conception  must  be  purchased,  according  to 
which  the  reflections  of  John  on  the  person  of  Christ  form  the  substance  of 
the  fourth  Gospel ! 

Ebrard  returns  to  the  plan  of  Bengel,  and  once  more  bases  the  order  of 
our  Gospel  upon  the  feast-journeys.  But  he  attaches  a  more  profound 
meaning  to  this  apparently  quite  external  principle  of  division.    He 

i  Hist,  de  la  Thiol,  chret.,  2d  ed.  t  ii.,  pp.  392-394.  Die  Oesehichte  der  heil  Schr.  N.  T.,  5th  »d, 
1874, 1  221. 


PLAN  OF  THE  GOSPEL.  225 

justly  remarks  that  the  journeys  of  Jesus  to  Judea  are  the  natural  turning 
points  of  the  history,  since,  Jerusalem  being  the  central  point  of  opposition, 
each  visit  of  Jesus  to  that  capital,  instead  of  being  a  step  towards  His  glori- 
ous coming,  became  one  towards  the  catastrophe.  Nevertheless,  we  have 
already  seen,  and  we  shall  see  still  further,  the  insufficiency  of  this  division. 
As  de  Wette  had  made  everything  rest  upon  the  objective  element,  the 
manifestation  of  Jesus'  glory,  and  as  Schweizer  had  made  especially  con- 
spicuous one  of  the  two  subjective  factors,  unbelief,  it  was  natural  that  an 
interpreter  should  lay  hold  of  the  other,  faith.  This  is  what  Baur  has  done. 
He  sees  in  our  Gospel  the  (ideal)  history  of  the  development  of  faith. 
Baur  consecrated  to  this  task  the  resources  of  a  mind  most  sagacious  and 
most  fully  determined  not  to  recoil  at  the  presence  of  any  obstacle  which 
the  text  presented  to  him;  and  he  has  thus  powerfully  contributed  to 
demonstrate  the  unity  of  John's  work.  He  divides  the  Gospel  into  nine 
sections,  which,  however,  the  prologue  being  set  aside  and  certain  second- 
ary divisions  passed  without  notice,  can  be  reduced  to  five  :  1.  The  first 
manifestations  of  the  Word,  and  the  first  symptoms  of  faith  and  unbelief 
which  resulted  therefrom,  i-vi. ;  2.  The  (dialectic)  victory  of  faith  over  its 
opposite,  unbelief,  vii.-xii. ;  3.  The  positive  development  of  faith,  xiii.-xvii. 
Having  reached  this  point,  Baur  meets  the  same  difficulty  as  Reuss.  How 
to  pass  from  idea  to  history,  from  the  dialectic  development  of  faith  to 
the  positive  facts  of  the  death  and  resurrection  of  the  Saviour  ?  The  idea 
demands  nothing  further.  This  is  the  way  in  which  Baur  continues ;  4i 
The  death  of  Jesus  appears  as  the  work  of  unbelief;  5.  His  resurrection, 
as  the  consummation  of  faith.  Such  is  the  meaning  of  xviii.-xx.  But, 
from  this  author's  point  of  view,  this  last  part  remains,  nevertheless,  a 
superfetation,  as  in  the  case  of  Reuss.  The  Passion  and  Resurrection  are 
facts  of  too  weighty  a  character  to  make  it  possible  for  them  to  have  their 
place  seriously  assigned  in  the  account  of  the  dialectic  development  of 
faith, and  to  be  made  mere  landmarks  on  the  road  which  leads  from  the 
objection  of  Nathanael  (ch.  i.)  to  the  cry  of  faith  given  by  Thomas  (eh.  xx.). 
We  must  either  idealize  the  fourth  Gospel  to  its  very  end,  or,  by  a  retro- 
active conclusion,  starting  from  the  truly  historical  character  of  the  last 
part,  must  recognize  also  that  of  the  preceding  parts.1 

1  We  may  see  here  the  difficulty  presenting  late  itself  into  fact  ?    The  pure  idea  has  no 

itself,  at  a  particular  point,  which  attaches  right  to  go  out  of  itself,  in  order  to  trans- 

everywhere  to  the  philosophical  (Hegelian)  form    itself    into   a   real    world.    Only    the 

view  on  which  the  theology  of  Baur  rests.  In  world  exists,  and  it  is  necessary  to  give  it  a 

virtue  of  what  logical   necessity   does  the  place  in  the  system. 
idea  pass  out  of  its  pure  existence  to  trans- 
15 


226  '  INTRODUCTION. 

Luthardt  accepted  almost  wholly  the  results  of  the  work  of  Baur  in  re- 
gard to  the  special  point  with  which  Ave  are  now  concerned.  Only  he 
justly  lays  down  as  the  basis  of  the  development  of  faith  the  historic  reve- 
lation of  Christ,  so  properly  emphasized  by  de  Wette.  The  Son  displays 
His  glory ;  faith  springs  up,  but  at  the  same  time  unbelief  awakes ;  and 
soon  Jesus  is  unable  to  manifest  further  the  divine  principle  which  is  in 
Him,  except  in  conflict  with  the  hostile  elements  which  surround  him. 
Nevertheless,  in  the  midst  of  this  conflict  faith  gathers  strength  among 
the  disciples,  and  the  moment  arrives  when  Jesus,  after  having  broken 
with  the  people  and  their"  rulers,  gives  Himself  entirely  to  the  faith  of 
His  own  followers  and  impresses  upon  it  the  seal  of  completeness.  Ac- 
cordingly, Luthardt  supposes  the  following  three  parts  :  1.  Jesus  begins  to 
reveal  Himself  as  Son  of  God,  i.-iv. ;  2.  Jesus  continues  to  give  testimony 
to  Himself,  while  contending  with  Jewish  unbelief,  v.-xii. ;  3.  Jesus  gives 
Himself  completely  to  the  faith  of  His  own,  xiii-xx. 

Luthardt,  in  the  footsteps  of  Baur,  seems  to  me  more  successfully  than 
any  one  else  to  have  penetrated  into  the  spirit  of  the  book  and  into  the 
inner  thought  which  directed  the  course  of  the  narrative.  And  yet  the 
defective  point  in  the  plan  which  he  proposes  is  obvious ;  it  is  found  in 
the  last  section.  How  are  we  to  find  a  place  for  the  account  of  the  Pas- 
sion in  the  third  section,  entitled :  Jesus  and  His  oivn  ?  Luthardt  here 
mingles  in  one  group  elements  which  are  altogether  heterogeneous. 

Meyer's  division  appears  to  me  to  be  rather  a  retrograde  step  than  an 
advance.  On  the  one  hand,  it  raises  secondary  parts  to  the  position  of 
principal  parts ;  for  example,  in  the  first  eleven  chapters,  which  Meyer 
divides  into  four  sections :  1.  First  revelations  of  the  glory  of  the  Son,  i.  1.- 
ii.  11 ;  2.  Continuation  of  this  revelation  in  the  presence  of  growing  be- 
lief and  unbelief,  ii.  12-iv.  54. ;  3.  New  revelations  and  progress  of  unbelief, 
v.-vi.  :4.  Unbelief  having  reached  its  culmination,  vii.-xi.  On  the  other 
hand,  Meyer  unites  quite  distinct  parts  in  one,  when  he  joins  together 
chaps,  xii.-xx.  in  one  group,  entitled  :  5.  The  supreme  manifestation  of 
the  glory  of  Jesus  before,  in,  and  after  the  Passion. 

Arnaud 1  has  returned  to  the  division  of  Bengel,  Olshausen  and  Ebrard, 
according  to  the  feast-journeys.  Thus,  between  the  prologue  and  the  res- 
urrection, he  points  out  five  parts  corresponding  with  the  five  journeys 
indicated  by  the  evangelist:  1.  ii.  13,  (Passover);  2.  v.,  (a  feast  not  desig- 
nated); 3.  vii.  2,  (Tabernacles);  4.  x.  22,  (Dedication);  5.  xii.  1,  (Pass- 
over).    In  addition  to  the  disadvantage  already  pointed  out,  of  effacing 

1  Commentaire  sur  le.  N.  T.,  t.  ii.  1863. 


PLAN   OF  THE   GOSPEL.  227 

the  resting'point  of  the  narrative  which  is  clearly  marked  by  the  evange- 
list at  the  end  of  ch.  xii.,  this  division  has  the  further  one  of  making  an 
outside  matter  of  that  entire  portion  of  the  narrative, — so  important 
nevertheless, — which  precedes  the  first  feast-journey,  i.  19— ii.  12. 

Lange  discovers  seven  sections  in  the  narrative  :  1.  The  welcome  givenl 
to  Christ  by  the  friends  of  the  light,  i.  19-iv.  54;  2.  The  conflict  between 
Christ  and  the  elements  of  darkness,  v.  1-vii.  9 ;  3.  The  continually  in- 
creasing fermentation,  vii.  10-x.  21 ;  4.  The  complete  separation  between 
the  heterogeneous  elements,  x.  22-xiii.  30;  5.  The  Lord  among  the 
friends  of  the  light,  xiii.  31-xvii.  26 ;  6.  The  Lord  in  the  midst  of  His 
enemies,  a  conqueror  in  outward  defeat,  xviii.  1-xix.  42 ;  7.  The  victory 
accomplished,  xx.  This  division  seems  to  me  a  movement  backward, 
rather  than  an  advance. 

F.  de  Rougemont,  in  his  translation  of  Olshausen's  Commentary,  1844, 
has  traced  the  plan,  which,  so  far  as  relates  to  the  distinction  and  arrange- 
ment of  the  parts,  seems  to  me  to  approach  most  nearly  to  the  truth  :  1. 
Jesus  attracts  to  Himself  the  souls  which  do  the  truth,  i.-iv. ;  2.  He  re- 
veals Himself  to  the  world  which  rejects  Him,  v.-xii. ;  3.  He  manifests 
Himself  fully  to  His  disciples,  xiii.-xvii. ;  4.  After  having  accomplished 
everything,  He  dies,  xviii.-xix. ;  5.  He  rises  from  the  dead  and  becomes 
through  the  Holy  Spirit  the  source  of  life  for  believers,  xx.  The  only  de- 
fect in  this  arrangement  appears  to  me  to  lie  in  the  designation  of  the 
contents  of  certain  parts  and  in  the  absence  of  a  distinct  logical  relation, 
established  between  them. 

The  foregoing  review  has  made  evident,  in  succession,  the  three  princi- 
pal factors  in  the  narrative  of  our  Gospel :  1.  Jesus  and  His  manifesta- 
tion ;  2.  Faith;  3.  Unbelief;  or  to  state  it  more  precisely,  the  manifestation 
of  Jesus  as  Messiah  and  as  Son  of  God ;  the  birth,  growth,  and  completing 
of  faith  in  the  disciples ;  the  parallel  development  of  the  national  unbelief. 
De  Wette,  Schweizer  and  Baur  have  shown  us  in  their  plans  the  most  re- 
markable examples  of  three  divisions  founded  solely  or  mainly  on  one  of 
these  factors.  But  we  have  seen  the  impossibility  of  making  either  one 
or  another  part  of  the  narrative  find  its  place  in  the  frame-works  pro- 
posed by  these  three  men.  This  fact  has  an  easy  explanation,  if  our  Gos- 
pel is  a  work  of  a  really  historical  character.  A  purely  rational  frame- 
work applied  to  history  must  always  retain  something  of  artificiality,  and 
betray  its  insufficiency  on  some  side.  Fact  must  always  go  beyond  the 
idea,  because  it  includes  the  incalculable  element  of  freedom.  Let  us, 
then,  renounce  synthetical  divisions  which  are  more  or  less  connected 


228  INTRODUCTION. 

with  the  opinion  that  the  fourth  Gospel  is  a  work  essentially  speculative, 
and,  without  bringing  to  this  question  any  preconceived  idea,  let  us  allow 
the  narrative  to  act  upon  us  and  reveal  to  us  its  own  secret.  It  seems  to 
me  that  we  shall,  without  difficulty,  discern  five  groups  which  have  a 
natural  gradation  and  which  the  efforts  already  indicated  have  succes- 
sively brought  to  light. 

1.  i.  19-iv.  54 :  Jesus  reveals  Himself  as  the  Messiah.  With  this  funda- 
mental facts  are  connected,  on  the  one  side,  the  birth  and  the  first  growths 
of  faith ;  on  the  other,  the  first  scarcely  perceptible  symptoms  of  unbelief. 

2.  v.-xii. :  The  national  unbelief  develops  itself  rapidly  and  powerfully, 
and  that  on  the  foundation  of  the  growing  revelation  of  Jesus  manifest- 
ing Himself  ever  more  clearly  as  the  Son  of  God;  at  the  same  time, 

I  there  is  wrought  out,  subsidiarily,  the  development  of  faith  in  the  disci- 
ples, by  means  of  those  very  struggles. 

3.  xiii.-xvii. :  Faith  develops  itself  and  reaches  its  highest  point  of 
;  strength  and  light  in  the  disciples  during  the  last  hours  which  they  spend 
.  with  their  Master ;  and  this  development  is  wrought  by  means  of  the  last 

revelations  of  Jesus,  and  in  consequence  of  the  expulsion  of  the  faithless 
.  disciple  in  whose  person,  unbelief  had  gained  a  foothold,  even  in  the  bosom 
of  the  apostolic  college. 

4.  xviii.-xix. :  The  national  unbelief  consummates  its  work  by  the  mur- 
der of  the  Messiah,  while  the  calm  radiance  of  the  glory  of  the  latter 
penetrates  that  gloomy  night,  and  the  silent  growth  of  faith  continues 
in  the  few  disciples  whose  eyes  are  still  open  to  receive  these  divine 
splendors. 

5.  xx.  (xxi.) :  The  Resurrection,  that  supreme  revelation  of  Jesus  as  the 
Son  of  God,  completes  the  victory  of  faith  over  the  last  remnants  of  un- 
belief in  the  company  of  the  Twelve. 

Exegesis  will  show  whether  this  summary  of  the  narrative  is  in  con- 
formity with  the.  text  and  the*  spirit  of  the  writing.  If  it  is,  the  three 
principal  elements,  which  we  have  pointed  out  are  met  with  again,  and 
are  developed  simultaneously  and  face  to  face  in  all  parts  of  the  narrative, 
but  with  this  difference,  that  the  first,  the  revelation  of  Jesus,  forms  the  con- 
tinuous basis  of  the  narrative,  and  that  the  two  others  unfold  themselves 
alternately,  the  one  with  an  ever  clearer  brightness,  the  other  in  more  and 
more  sombre  colors,  on  this  permanent  basis.  To  sum  up :  From  i.  18- 
xx.  29  we  see  Jesus  revealing  Himself  continuously  as  the  Christ  and  the 
Son  of  God ;  under  the  influence  of  this  growing 'manifestation,  faith  is 
born  and  unbelief  awakes,  i.-iv. ;  the  latter  gets  the  mastery  in  the  midst 


PLAN  OF   THE   GOSPEL.  229 

of  the  nation,  v.-xii. ;  the  former  attains  its  relative  perfection  in  the  last 
conversations  of  Jesus  with  His  disciples,  xiii.-xvii. ;  finally,  unbelief  is 
consummated,  xviii.-xix. ;  and  faith  reaches  its  completeness,  xx.  (xxi.). 

There  is  in  this  arrangement  nothing  systematic,  nothing  factitious. 
It  is  the  photography  of  the  history.  If  exegesis  proves  that  this  plan, 
at  once  so  natural  and  so  profound,  is  indeed  that  of  this  book,  we  shall 
find  in  this  fact  an  important  confirmation  of  the  truly  historical  charac- 
ter and  the  seriously  practical  aim  of  our  Gospel. 

Of  the  plans  which  have  been  proposed  since  the  publication  of  this 
commentary,  we  mention  only  the  following : 

That  of  Milligan  and  Moulton l  is  absolutely  the  same  with  the  one 
which  we  have  just  sketched,  with  the  exception  of  the  last  two  parts,  the 
Passion  and  the  Resurrection,  which  they  combine  in  a  single  one  under 
this  title  :  the  apparent  victory  and  real  defeat  of  unbelief.  It  does  not 
seem  to  us  that  this  is  an  advance.  The  element  of  faith  is  thereby  too 
far  effaced. 

Westcott2  accepts  the  grand  division  of  Heuss :  revelation  of  Christ  to 
the  world  (i.-xii.) ;  revelation  of  Christ  to  the  disciples  (extending  this 
latter  even  to  the  end)  xiii.-xx.  But  it  is  not  possible  to  place  the  story 
of  the  Passion  under  the  general  title  of  the  revelation  to  the  disciples. 

In  1871,  in  the  Zeitschri/t  filr  wissemchaftliche  Theologie,  Honig,  presented 
the  following  plan :  The  manifestation  of  the  Logos  in  the  person  of 
Jesus — this  is  the  general  idea.  It  unfolds  itself  in  three  phases  :  1.  i.-vi. : 
the  manifestation  of  the  Logos  ;  2.  vii.-xii. :  the  selection  between  the  oppo- 
site elements  ;  8.  xiii.-xx. :  The  catastrophe  resulting  from  this  selection 
and  issuing  in  the  victory  of  the  Logos.  But  we  do  not  altogether  sec  the 
reason  of  the  opposition  thus  established  between  the  first  two  parts. 
The  selection  between  the  opposite  elements  has  begun  from  the  first 
chapter ;  and  the  revelation  of  Jesus  continues  after  chap,  vi.,  as  before. 
The  same  is  the  case  in  the  last  part.  The  revelation  of  the  Logos  re- 
mains even  to  the  end  the  groundwork  of  the  narrative,  and  that  as  the 
principle  of  a  selection  the  description  of  which  also  fills  the  whole 
book. 

As  on  a  day  in  spring  the  sun  rises  in  a  serene  sky ;  the  ground,  moist- 
ened by  the  snows,  absorbs  greedily  his  warm  rays;  everything  which  is 
susceptible  of  life  awakens  and  revives;  nature  is  in  travail.  Neverthe- 
less, after  some  hours  vapors  rise  from  the  moist  earth ;  they  unite  and 
form  an  obscure  canopy ;  the  sun  is  veiled ;  the  storm  threatens.     The 

1  Popular  Commentary,  Edinburgh,  1S30.  2  The  Gospel  according  to  John,  Loudon,  1882. 


230  INTRODUCTION. 

plants  under  the  impulse  which  they  have  received,  nevertheless  accom- 
plish their  silent  progress.  At  length,  when  the  sun  has  reached  the 
meridian,  the  storm  breaks  forth  and  rages ;  nature  is  abandoned  to 
destructive  forces;  it  loses  for  a  time  the  star  which  gives  it  life.  But  at 
evening  the  clouds  are  scattered ;  the  calm  returns,  and  the  sun  reappear- 
ing with  a  more  magnificent  splendor  than  that  which  accompanied  its 
rising,  casts  on  all  these  plants — children  of  his  rays — a  last  smile  and  a 
sweet  adieu ;  thus,  as  it  seems  to  us,  the  work  of  St.  John  unfolds  itself. 
This  plan,  if  it  is  real,  is  not  the  work  of  theological  reflection ;  it  is  the 
product  of  history,  long  meditated  upon.  Conceived  in  the  calmness  of 
recollection  and  the  sweetness  of  possession,  it  has  nothing  in  common 
with  the  combinations  of  metaphysical  effort  or  the  refined  calculations 
of  ecclesiastical  policy,  except  what  a  criticism  which  is  foreign  to  the 
spirit  of  this  book  tries  to  ascribe  to  its  author. 


CHAPTER  SECOND. 

THE  PRESERVATION  OP  THE  TEXT. 

The  text  of  our  Gospel  has  come  down  to  us  in  three  sorts  of  documents ; 
Manuscripts,  ancient  Versions  and  citations  of  the  Fathers. 

I. 

The  Manuscripts. 

The  manuscripts  (MSS.)  are  divided  as  is  well-known,  into  two  great 
classes:  those  which  are  written  in  uncial  letters,  called  majuscules  (Mjj.), 
and  those  in  which  we  find  the  rounded  and  cursive  writing  in  use  since 
the  tenth  century  of  our  era,  the  minuscules  (Mnn.).1  The  text  of  our 
Gospel  is  contained,  in  whole,  or  in  part,  in  31  Mjj.  and  about  500  Mnn. 
which  are  now  known. 

I.  The  majuscules,  of  which  the  most  ancient  have  acquired  in  some 
sort  an  individual  value  in  critical  science,  can  be  divided  into  three 
groups :  1.  The  vetustissimi,  i.  e.  those  which  date  from  the  fourth  and  fifth 
centuries,  eight  in  number.  2.  The  vetustiores,  going  back  to  the  sixth 
and  seventh  centuries,  six  in  number.  3.  The  vetusti,  or  simple  veterans, 
which  proceed  from  the  eighth,  ninth  and  tenth  centuries,  seventeen  in 

i  We  shall  not  speak  here  of  the  Evangelis-       epistles  which  were  appointed  to  be  regularly 
taria  and  Lee.tionaria,  containing  only  the       read  in  public  worship, 
collection  of  the  portions  of  the  gospels  and 


THE   PRINCIPAL  DOCUMENTS.  231 

number.    They  are  designated,  since  Wetstein's  time,  by  means  of  the 
capital  letters  of  the  Latin,  Greek  or  even  Hebrew  alphabets.1 

The  first  group  at  present  includes  four  MBS.,  more  or  less  complete, 
and  four  documents  more  or  less  fragmentary. 

1.  Cod.  Sinaiticus  (k)  ;  at  St.  Petersburg ;  discovered  by  Tischendorf,  Feb.  4th, 
1859,  in  the  monastery  of  St.  Catherine  on  Mount  Sinai ;  dating,  according  to  this 
scholar,  from  the  first  part  of  the  fourth  century ;  according  to  others,  Volkmar 
for  example,  from  the  end  of  the  fourth  or  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century ; 
written  probably  at  Alexandria ;  retouched  by  several  correctors.  It  contains 
our  Gospel  without  any  lacuna.     Published  by  Tischendorf,  Leipsic,  1863. 

2.  Cod.  Vaticanus  (B) ;  dating,  according  to  Tischendorf,  from  the  middle  of  the 
fourth  century ;  according  to  most,  earlier  than  the  preceding  and  the  most 
ancient  of  all ;  probably  written  in  Egypt ;  containing  our  Gospel  without  any 
lacuna ;  published  by  Tischendorf,  Nov.  Testam.  Vaticanum,  Lipshe,  1871. 

3.  Cod.  Ephracmi  (C),  No.  9  of  the  Imperial  Library  of  Paris,  rescriptus  ;  accord- 
ing to  Tischendorf,  of  the  first  part  of  the  fifth  century ;  written  probably  in 
Egypt ;  retouched  in  the  sixth  and  ninth  centuries.  In  the  twelfth  century,  the 
text  of  the  New  Testament  was  effaced  to  make  room  for  that  of  the  works  of 
Ephrem,  a  father  of  the  Syrian  Church.  The  ancient  writing  has  been  restored 
by  chemical  means,  but  this  manuscript  presents  still  considerable  lacunae.  Of  our 
Gospel,  only  the  following  eight  passages  have  been  recovered  :  i.  1-41 ;  iii.  33-v. 
16;  vi.  38-vii.  3;  viii.  34-ix.  11 ;  xi.  8-46 ;  xiii.  8-xiv.  7;  xvi.  21-xviii.  36  ;  xx. 
26  to  the  end  of  the  Gospel. 

4.  Cod.  Alexandrimis  (A) ;  at  London  ;  of  the  second  half  of  the  fifth  century  ; 
written  probably  at  Alexandria.    One  lacuna  only  in  our  Gospel :  vi.  50— viii.  52. 

5.  Seven  palimpsest  fragments  (I)  found  by  Tischendorf  in  Egypt;  dating  from 
the  fifth  and  sixth  centuries,  and  in  John  containing  some  passages  of  chaps,  iv., 
xi.,  xii.,  xv.,  xvi.  and  xix. 

6.  Fragments  brought  from  an  Egyptian  monastery  (Ib) ;  at  London ;  dating 
from  the  fourth  or  fifth  century,  according  to  Tischendorf;  containing  in  John 
some  verses  of  chaps,  xiii.  and  xvi. 

7.  A  palimpsest  fragment  (Q) ;  of  the  fifth  century  (according  to  Tischendorf)*; 
found  in  the  Wolfenbuttel  Library ;  containing  in  our  Gospel  the  two  following 
passages  :  xii.  3-20 ;  xiv.  3-22. 

8.  Some  fragments  of  a  Cod.  Borginnm  (T) ;  at  Rome  ;  fifth  century  (Tischen- 
dorf), containing,  with  the  Egyptian  translation,  called  the  Sahidic,  on  the  opposite 
page,  the  two  passages:  vi.  28-67  ;  vii.  G— viii.  31. 

The  second  group  is  more  meagre.  It  includes  only  one  manuscript, 
and  five  fragments,  or  collections  of  fragments. 

9.  Cod,  Canlabrigienv's  (D) ;  at  Cambridge;  of  the  middle  of  the  sixth  century 
(Tischendorf);  although  presenting  certain  Alexandrian  forms,  it  was,  no  doubt, 
written  in  the  West,  and  probably  in  Southern  Gaul  (see  Bleek,  Einl.,  3d  ed.,  publ. 

'We  shall  employ  the  signs  adopted  by  Tischendorf  in  his  eighth  and  last  edition,  Vol.  I., 
1869,  and  Vol.  II.,  1872. 


232  INTRODUCTION. 

by  Mangold,  p.  816).  Parallel  with  the  Greek  text  a  Latin  translation  is  found, 
earlier  than  that  of  Jerome.  Two  large  lacunae  in  our  Gospel :  i.  16-iii.  26 ;  xviii. 
13-xx.  13. 

10.  A  palimpsest  fragment  (P) ;  at  Wolfenbiittel ;  of  the  sixth  century ;  contain- 
ing three  passages  of  our  Gospel;  i.  29-41 ;  ii.  13-25;  xxi.  1-11. 

11.  Fragments  of  a  splendid  manuscript  (N),  four  leaves  of  which  are  found  at 
London,  two  at  Vienna,  six  at  Rome,  thirty-three  at  Patmos ;  of  the  end  of  the 
sixth  century  (Tischendorf) ;  containing  of  John's  Gospel  only  xiv.  2-10 ;  xv. 
15-22. 

12.  Fragments  obtained  by  Tischendorf  from  the  Porphyric  Library  (G  e  and  g) ; 
of  the  sixth  century  ;  passages  from  chaps,  vi.  and  xviii. 

13.  Some  fragments  (Tb) ;  at  St.  Petersburg;  of  the  sixth  century;  passages 
from  chaps,  i.,  ii.  and  iv.  of  our  Gospel. 

14.  Marginal  annotations  (Ftt)  in  the  Cod.  Coidinianus  of  the  Epistles  of  Paul 
(H— 202  of  the  National  Library  of  Paris) ;  containing  some  verses  of  John  from  a 
text  of  the  seventh  century  (v.  35,  and  vi.  53,  55). 

The  third  group  is  the  most  considerable;  it  contains  eleven  mani> 
scripts,  more  or  less  complete,  and  fragments  of  six  others. 

15.  Cod.  Basileensis  (E) ;  at  Basle ;  of  the  eighth  century ;  it  appears  to  have 
been  used  in  public  worship  in  one  of  the  churches  of  Constantinople ;  it  contains 
the  entire  Gospel  of  John. 

16.  The  beautiful  Cod.  of  Paris  (L) ;  of  the  eighth  century ;  it  wants  only  xxi. 
15  to  the  end. 

17.  Fragments  of  a  Cod.  in  the  Barberini  Library  (Y) ;  of  the  eighth  century ; 
containing,  of  our  Gospel:  xvi.  3-xix.  41. 

18.  Cod.  Sangallensis  (A) ;  written  in  the  ninth  century  by  the  Scotch  or  Irish 
monks  of  the  monastery  of  St.  Gall ;  complete,  with  the  exception  of  xix.  17-35. 
This  Cod.  contains  an  interlinear  Latin  translation,  which  is  neither  that  of  Jerome 
nor  the  version  anterior  to  this  Father. 

19.  Cod.  Boreeli  (F)  at  Utrecht ;  of  the  ninth  century ;  containing  the  portion 
of  our  Gospel  from  i.  1-xiii.  34 ;  but  with  numerous  lacunae. 

20.  Cod.  Seiddii  (G) ;  brought  from  the  East  by  Seidel ;  at  London  ;  of  the  ninth 
or  tenth  century ;  two  lacunae  :  xviii.  5-19,  and  xix.  4-27. 

21.  A  second  Cod.  Seiddii  (H);  at  Hamburg;  of  the  ninth  or  tenth  century; 
some  lacunae  in  chaps,  ix.,  x.,  xviii.  and  xx. 

22.  Cod.  Kyprius  (K) ;  at  Paris ;  of  the  ninth  century ;  brought  from  the  island 
of  Cyprus  to  the  Colbert  Library ;  complete. 

23.  The  Cod.  of  des  Camps  (M) ;'  at  Paris ;  of  the  ninth  century ;  a  gift  to  Louis 
XIV.  from  the  Abbe"  des  Camps  in  1706  ;  complete. 

24.  Fragments  of  a  Cod.  from  Mount  Athos  (O) ;  at  Moscow ;  of  the  ninth  cen- 
tury;  containing  i.  1-4,  and  xx.  10-13. 

25.  A  fragment  belonging  to  the  Library  of  Moscow  (V) ;  of  the  ninth  century ; 
containing  i.  1-vii.  39. 

26.  A  Cod.  brought  from  the  east  by  Tischendorf  (r) ;  at  Oxford  and  St.  Peters- 
burg ;  ninth  century ;  containing  iv.  14-viii.  3,  and  xv.  24-xix.  6. 

27.  A  Cod.  brought  by  the  same  from  the  East  (A) ;  at  Oxford ;  ninth  century ; 
complete. 


THE   PRINCIPAL   DOCUMENTS.  233 

28.  Fragments  of  a  Cod.  (X)  in  the  University  Library  at  Munich  ;  containing 
passages  from  chaps,  i.,  ii.,  vii.-xvi. 

29.  A  Cod.  brought  from  Smyrna  by  Tischendorf  (II) ;  ninth  century ;  com- 
plete. 

30.  A  Cod.  of  the  Vatican  (S)  ;  of  the  year  949  ;  complete. 

31.  A  Cod.  at  Venice  (U) ;  of  the  tenth  century ;  complete. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  oldest  of  these  MSS.  bear  almost  no  trace  of 
accentuation,  punctuation,  or  separation  between  words  and  periods. 
These  different  elements  were  only  gradually  introduced  into  the  text;  and 
herein  we  have  one  of  the  means  which  are  employed  in  estimating  the 
age  of  the  manuscripts.  To  these  elements  of  the  text,  therefore,  we  should 
not  allow  any  sort  of  authority. 

II.  Of  the  five  hundred  minuscules  deposited  in  the  various  libraries  of 
Europe,  a  large  number  have  not  yet  been  collated.  Although  they  are 
all  of  more  recent  origin  than  the  majuscules,  many  of  them  occasionally 
offer  interesting  readings. 

II. 
B.  The  Ancient  Versions. 

The  translations  (Vss.)  have  the  disadvantage  of  not  directly  furnishing 
the  text  of  the  New  Testament,  but  leaving  it  to  be  conjectured.  Never- 
theless, they  may  render  important  service  for  the  criticism  of  the  text, 
especially  when  the  question  is  as  to  the  omission  or  interpolation  of  words 
and  passages,  and  the  more  so  as  some  of  them  are  much  earlier  than  our 
most  ancient  manuscripts. 

There  are  two  of  them  which,  for  critical  importance,  surpass  all  the 
others ;  the  ancient  Syriac  translation  called  Peschito,  and  the  ancient  Latin 
translation  to  which  the  name  Mala  has  been  given  from  a  passage  in 
Augustine. 

I.  Peschito  (Syr.). 

This  translation  (whose  name  apparently  signifies  the  simple,  the  faith- 
ful1) goes  back,  according  to  the  common  opinion,  as  far  as  the  second 
century  of  our  era;  according  to  Westcott  and  Hort,  it  must  in  its  present 
form  be  placed  between  250  and  350.  It  seems  to  have  had,  at  first,  an 
ecclesiastical  destination.  It  is  what  its  name  indicates,  faithful  without 
servility.  The  principal  edition,  according  to  which  it  is  cited  by  Tischen- 
dorf, is  that  of  Lcusden  and  Schaaf,  1709  and  1717  (Syr.  sch.).  Cureton 
published  in  1858,  from  a  Syriac  manuscript  of  the  fourth  century,  dis- 

'    i  Tischendorf  has  a  different  view.     See  Bleek,  EM.,  3d  ed.,  p.  729,  and  J.  B.  Glaire,  lntr. 
hist.  et.  crit.,  1802,  t.      p.  187. 


234  INTRODUCTION. 

covered  in  an  Egyptian  convent,  fragments  of  a  Syriac  translation  of  the 
Gospels,  which  more  recently  have  been  still  further  increased  by  some 
others.  They  contain  the  following  parts  of  John :  i.  1-42 ;  iii.  6-vii. 
37 ;  xiv.  11-28  (Syr.  cur).  Another  Syriac  version  exists,  which  was  made 
at  the  beginning  of  the  sixth  century ;  it  is  called  the  Philozenian  transla- 
tion (Syr.  P-).    It  is  absolutely  literal. 

II.  Bala  (It.). 

Much  earlier  than  St.  Jerome,  probably  even  from  the  middle  of  the 
second  century,  there  existed  a  Latin  translation  of  the  New  Testament. 
It  certainly  came  from  proconsular  Africa,  where  the  Greek  language  was 
less  widely  extended  than  in  Italy.  It  was  servile  to  excess  and  of  an  ex- 
treme rudeness,  but  it  existed  in  very  varied  forms.  We  possess  several 
copies  of  these  ancient  Latin  versions,  either  in  the  bilingual  manuscripts 
— the  Cod.  D,  for  example,  which  contains  the  Latin  translation  designated 
by  d — or  in  particular  manuscripts,  such  as  the  Vercellensis,  of  the  fourth 
century,  (a);  the  Veronensis,  of  the  fourth  or  fifth  century,  (b);  the  Colber- 
tensls,  of  the  eleventh  century,  (c),  etc. 

Near  the  end  of  the  fourth  century  St.  Jerome  revised  this  primitive 
translation,  according  to  ancient  Greek  manuscripts.  This  new  version, 
the  Vulgate  (Vg.)  has  been  preserved  to  us  in  several  documents  of  a  high 
antiquity,  but  quite  different  from  each  other ;  thus  the  Cod.  Amiatinus 
(am.),  and  the  Fuldensis  (fuld.),  both  of  the  sixth  century. 

Among  the  other  ancient  translations,  the  most  interesting  for  critical 
use  are  the  three  Egyptian,  versions ;  the  fragments  of  the  Sahidic  transla- 
tion (Sah.),  in  the  dialect  of  Upper  Egypt;  the  Coptic  translation  (Cop.),  in 
that  of  Lower  Egypt,  and  the  Baschmuric  translation  (Bas.),  in  a  third  dia- 
lect, which  the  younger  Champollion  supposed  to  be  that  of  Fayoum  (of 
John,  only  iv.  28-58).  What  gives  these  versions  a  special  interest  is,  first, 
their  date  (the  third,  or  even,  according  to  Bishop  Lightfoot,  the  second 
century),  and,  then,  their  intimate  relation  to  the  text  of  our  most  ancient 
Greek  manuscripts. 

*-     •  •  III. 

C.  The  Fathers. 

The  quotations  from  the  New  Testament  in  the  writings  of  the  Fathers 
have,  with  reason,  been  called  "fragments  of  ancient  manuscripts."  Only 
it  must  be  remembered  that  very  frequently  the  Fathers  cite  merely  from 
memory  and  according  the  sense.  But  their  citations,  nevertheless,  remain 
in  a  multitude  of  cases  an  important  critical  means  of  establishing  the 
condition  of  the  text  at  an  epoch  to  which  our  MSS.  do  not  go  back.    The 


THE  PRINCIPAL   DOCUMENTS.  235 

most  important  are  Irenseus  (Ir.),  Clement  of  Alexandria  (Clem.),  Tertul- 
lian  (Tert.),  Origen  (Or.),  Chrysostom  (Chrys.).  The  readings  of  the  here- 
tics have,  also,  a  certain  value,  particularly  for  the  Gospel  of  John,  those 
of  Heracleon,  a  Gnostic  of  the  second  century,  of  the  school  of  Valentinus ; 
he  is  the  author  of  the  oldest  commentary  on  this  writing.  Origen  has 
preserved  for  us  some  parts  of  this  interesting  work. 

D.  The  Text  in  general. 

These  suggestions,  as  much  abridged  as  possible,  will  be  sufficient  to 
place  the  readers  in  a  condition  to  comprehend  the  portion  of  our  com- 
mentary which  relates  to  the  criticism  of  the  text,  and  to  render  accessible 
to  them  the  eighth  edition  of  Tischendorf,  in  the  notes  of  which  the  result 
of  the  immense  labors  of  that  scholar  is  concentrated. 

Since  the  time  of  Bengel,  it  began  to  be  established  that  the  critical 
documents  have  a  tendency  to  group  themselves,  in  case  of  variants, 
after  a  more  or  less  regular  manner.  Thus,  in  the  Epistles  of  Paul, 
if  we  run  over  several  pages  of  a  list  of  variations,  together  with  an  indi- 
cation of  their  respective  authorities,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  lead  us  to 
remark  very  soon  that  the  documents  separate  themselves  frequently  into 
three  more  or  less  fixed  groups.  In  the  Gospels,  these  opposing  camps 
tend,  rather,  to  reduce  themselves  to  two.  But  the  conflict  is  permanent. 
It  is  natural  to  suppose  that  these  two  or  three  groups  of  manuscripts  rep- 
resent the  different  forms  of  text  which  were  spontaneously  formed  in 
the  principal  regions  of  the  Church  from  the  second  and  third  centuries. 
As  the  writings  of  the  N.  T.  were  copied  by  hand  in  Syria,  in  Greece,  in 
Asia  Minor,  in  Egypt,  in  the  Roman  province  of  Africa  and  in  Italy,  why 
should  not  various  readings  have  been  introduced,  and  then  perpetu- 
ated and  fixed  in  each  of  these  regions  where  the  Church  flourished? 
Three  principal  original  homes  of  our  textual  documents  have  up  to  these 
most  recent  times  been  admitted,  and  as  a  consequence  three  principal 
courses  of  variations:  1.  Egypt,  with  its  great  manufacture  of  manu- 
scripts at  Alexandria ;  2.  The  West,  particularly  Italy  and  proconsular 
Africa,  with  the  two  centres,  Rome  and  Carthage;  3.  Palestine  and 
Syria,  whose  capital,  Antioch,  was  superseded  from  the  beginning  of  the 
fourth  century  by  the  new  capital  of  the  world,  Byzantium ;  and  with 
these  three  ecclesiastical  regions  the  three  principal  families  of  manu- 
scripts are  made  in  greater  or  less  degree  to  correspond :  1.  The  Alexandrian 
group,  composed  especially  of  B.  C.  L.,  then  also  of  x  and  finally  A, 
although  these  last  two,  especially  the  second,  partake  in  large  measure  of 


236  INTRODUCTION. 

other  texts  : '  2.  The  Western  or  Greco-Latin  group,  including-  principally 
the  Majuscules  which  are  a  little  less  ancient,  1).  F.  G.,  etc.,  whose 
Western  origin  is  easily  recognized  by  the  Latin  translation  which  accom- 
panies the  Greek  text;  3.  The  Byzantine  or  Syrian  group,  containing 
nearly  all  the  later  Majuscules  of  the  eighth,  ninth  and  tenth  centuries 
and  almost  all  the  Minuscules.  To  the  first  the  Egyptian  Versions 
belong;  to  the  second  the  Old  Latin  Version,  the  Itala;  to  the  third  the 
Syriac  Version,  named  Peschito.  The  most  ancient  Syriac  translation  of 
which  Cureton  recovered  fragments,  reproduces  especially  the  Alexan- 
drian text.  Among  the  Fathers,  Clement  of  Alex,  and  Origen  present 
more  the  Alexandrian  readings ;  the  Latin  Fathers,  the  Western  readings  ; 
Chrysostom  and  Theodoret,  the  Byzantine  readings.  Although  criticism 
and  exegesis  appear,  more  and  more,  disposed  openly  to  prefer  the  Alex- 
andrian text,  the  documents  pertaining  to  which  are  evidently  the  most 
ancient,  to  the  two  others,  yet  there  is  no  denial  of  all  authority  to  these 
last  two.  Tischendorf,  in  particular,  in  his  seventh  ed.,  and  up  to  the 
discovery  of  the  Sinaitic  MS.,  believed  that  he  ought  to  readmit  into  the 
text  many  Byzantine  readings,  which  he  had  before  set  aside. 

But  Hort  and  Westcott,  after  immense  labors,  have  arrived  at  quite  a 
different  view  of  the  history  of  the  text;2  and  one  which,  if  it  should 
come  to  be  accepted,  would  modify  completely  this  earlier  mode  of  judg- 
ing. According  to  them  we  must  distinguish,  on  one  side,  the  Syrian  or 
Byzantine  text  and,  on  the  other,  three  texts  anterior  to  that.  The  first 
dates  only  from  the'earliest  part  of  the  fourth  century,  while  the  forma- 
tion of  these  last  goes  back  even  to  the  second  century.  They  are :  1. 
The  Alexandrian  text ;  2.  The  Western  text ;  and  3.  A  text  which  they 
call  neutral,  that  is  to  say,  which  has  neither  the  Alexandrian  peculiarities, 
nor  the  Western  peculiarities;  which  consequently  approaches  most 
nearly  to  the  Apostolic  text.  This  last  has  been  preserved  for  us  in  the 
most  faithful  manner  in  the  Vatican  MS.,  then,  in  a  less  degree  of  purity, 
in  the  Sinaitic,  so  that,  where  these  two  manuscripts  are  in  accord,  there 
is  scarcely  any  room  for  discussion,  even  when  all  the  other  authorities 
are  on  the  other  side.  As  for  the  Syrian  text,  it  is  a  simple  compilation, 
made  by  means  of  the  three  others,  which  does  not  have  any  reading 

1  The  Egyptian  origin  of  all  these  manu-  in  a  private  library  in  Vienna,  present  all  the 

ocripts  has  received  a  recent   confirmation  readings  peculiar  to  the  manuscripts  indi- 

through  the  study  of  two  fragments  (Luko  cated.    See  the  account  by  Karl  Wessely  in. 

Tii.  3G-44 ;  x.  38-42)  belonging  to  an  Evange-  the  Wiener-Studien  of  1882. 
listarium  of  Lower  Egypt  (of  the  sixth  cen-  a  The  New  Testament.    Introduction,  1881. 

tury).    These  fragments  which  were  found 


THE   PRINCIPAL   DOCUMENTS.  237 

which  is  original  and  of  a  date  anterior  to  the  three  preceding  ones.  Its 
own  readings  are  only  the  product  of  a  work  of  revision  cleverly  accom- 
plished at  the  end  of  the  third  century.  There  is,  therefore,  no  reason  to 
take  the  least  account  of  this  text,  even  when  the  others  are  not  in  agree- 
ment. It  is  absolutely  without  authority.  Thus  the  revolution  begun  by 
Mill  and  Bentley,  continued  by  Griesbach,  Lachmann,  Tischendorf  and 
Tregellcs,  is  at  last  consummated.  The  Byzantine  text,  which,  under  the 
name  of  Received  Text,  had  reigned  as  sovereign  from  the  time  of 
Erasmus  to  the  eighteenth  century,  has  received  its  complete  and  final 
dismissal. 

Let  me  be  allowed,  however,  not  to  accept  this  verdict  as  a  sentence 
without  appeal.  I  can  hardly  believe  that  the  Church  in  Syria,  the  first 
established  in  a  heathen  country,  did  not  preserve  a  text  for  itself,  as  well 
as  the  other  countries  of  Christendom,  and  that  it  was  obliged  to  borrow 
wholly  from  foreign  documents  the  text  of  its  official  translation,  the 
Pcschito.  I  am  not  ignorant  that  the  Syriac  of  Cureton,  which  seems  to 
present  a  more  ancient  text  than  that  of  the  Peschito,  approaches  more 
nearly  to  the  Alexandrian.  And  more  learned  persons  than  myself  give 
up  the  attempt  to  explain,  with  our  present  means,  the  relation  between 
this  text  and  that  of  the  Peschito.  But  how  can  we  believe  that  such  a 
man  as  Chrysostom  would  have  adopted  that  of  the  Peschito  for  the  pur- 
pose of  making  it  the  foundation  of  his  sermons,  if  that  text  had  been 
only  the  product  of  a  quite  recent  compilation,  not  resting  on  any  sort  of 
local  authority.1  To  these  reasons  is  to  be  added  that  which  exegetical 
experience  appears  to  me  to  furnish.  As  there  are  cases  where  in  my 
opinion  the  Greco-Latin  text  is  certainly  preferable  to  the  so-called 
neutral  text  of  B  and  N,  and  in  general  to  the  reading  of  all  the  others, 
there  are  also  cases,  and  in  considerable  numbers,  where  the  texts  called 
ante-Syrian  by  Hort  and  Westcott  are  decidedly  inferior,  when  weighed 
in  the  balance  of  the  context,  to  the  Byzantine  readings.  Meyer  himself 
is  obliged  to  acknowledge  this  very  frequently. 

I  ask,  then,  simply  that  we  should  keep  the  protocol  open,  that  the 
documents  should  not  be  used  according  to  an  altogether  external  and 
mechanical  method,  and  that  in  each  particular  case  the  casting  vote 
should  be  accorded  to  exegetical  good  sense  and  tact.2 

1  See  the  development  of  these  reasons  in  in  this  view  with  the  most  learned  and  one 

the    Revue  theologlque  of   Montauban:    Une  of  the  most  sagacious  among  the  American 

nouvelle  idition  du  N.  T.,  1882,  i.  critics,  Ezra  Abbot,  the  recent  loss  of  whom 

„  » I  am  happy  to  find  myself  in  agreement  science  deplores.  See  his  excellent  article  on 


238  INTRODUCTION. 


THE  TITLE  OF  THE  GOSPEL. 

This  title  appears  in  the  MSS.  in  different  forms.  The  simplest  is  that 
which  we  find  in  X  B  D  :  /card  'luavvriv  (according  to  John).  The  majority 
of  the  Mjj.  and  x  (at  the  end  of  the  book)  :  evayy  kliov  Kara  'ludwr/v,  Gospel 
according  to  John.  T.  B.,  with  a  large  number  of  Mnn. :  to  Kara  T.  evayy., 
The  Gospel  according  to  John.  Stephen's  third  edition  adds  dyiov  (holy) 
before  evayy.,  with  several  Mnn.  Some  Mnn.  read:  ektov  k.  'I.  evayy.  The 
Vss.  vary  also :  evang.  Johannis  (Syr.) ;  ev.  per  Joh.  (Goth.) ;  ev.  secundum 
Joh.  (Cop.) ;  ev.  sanctum  prsedicationis  Joh.  praeconis  (according  to  cer- 
tain edd.  of  the  Syriac). 

All  these  variations  seen*  to  prove  that  this  title  did  not  proceed  from 
the  hand  of  the  author  or  the  editors  of  the  Gospel.  Had  it  belonged 
originally  to  the  body  of  the  work,  it  would  be  the  same,  or  nearly  the 
same,  in  all  the  documents.  It  was  doubtless  added  when  the  collection 
of  the  Gospels  was  made  in  the  churches,  which  formation  of  a  collec- 
tion was  brought  about  more  or  less  spontaneously  in  each  locality,  as  is 
shown  by  the  different  order  of  our  four  Gospels  and  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment writings  in  general  in  the  canons  of  the  churches.  The  differences 
in  the  titles  are,  doubtless,  explained  by  the  same  cause. 

But  what  is  the  exact  sense  of  this  formula :  "  according  to  John?"  From 
the  time  of  the  Manichean  Faustus  (Augustine,  contra  Faustum,  xxxii.  2) 
even  to  our  day,  scholars  have  been  found  who  have  given  to  /card,  accord- 
ing to,  a  very  broad  sense :  Gospel  drawn  up  according  to  the  type  of 
preaching  of  Matthew,  John,  etc.  It  is  thus  that  Beuss  (Gesch.  der  heil. 
Schr.  N.  T.,  \  177)  and  Benan  (Vie  de  Jesus,,  p.  xvi.),1  appear  to  understand 
the  word.  The  result  of  this  would  be  that  these  four  formulas,  instead 
of  attesting  the  fact  of  the  composition  of  our  Gospels  by  the  four  men 

the  variant  in  John  i.  18  in  the    Unitarian  eWerai) — John  i.  18  (#eds  instead  of  viot). 

Review,  June,  1875.    This  is  what  he  says  of  Acts  xii.  25  (ei?  'Up.  instead  of  dirb  'Up.)— xx. 

our  ancient  Alexandrian  manuscripts:   "All  28  (tou  #eo0  instead  of  toO Kvpiov) — Rom.  v.  1. 

these  documents,  or  the  greater  part  of  them,  (exwuev  instead  of  exop.ev) — 1  Cor.  ix.  10  (the 

often    agree  in  readings  which    are  either  Western  reading    only  admissible)— xiii.  3 

clearly  false  or  exceedingly  improbable  or  (Kavx*i<»'«>^<"  I) — Jas.  i.  17 — 2  Pet.   ii.  13,  etc. 

very  doubtful."    Thereupon  he  gives  a  list  In  all  these  cases,  as  in  many  others  which 

of  passages  for  which  I  would,  from  my  own  I  omit,  it  seems  to  me  that  a  sound  exegesis 

exegetieal  experience,  substitute  the  follow-  cannot  hesitate. 

ing,  borrowing  some  examples  from  his  list :  l "  These  formulas  merely  signify  that  those 

Matt,  xxvii.  49  (the  Alex,  addition    taken  were  the  traditions  which  proceeded  from 

from  Johnxix.  34)— Mk.  vi.22(ai,ToO  foraiiT^s)  each  one  of  these  apostles,  and  which  were 

—Luke  i.  17  (npoaetevatTai.  instead  of  npotK-  clothed  with  their  authority." 


THE  TITLE  OF  TIIE  GOSPEL.  209 

designated  in  the  titles,  would,  on  the  contrary,  exclude  it.  But  no  one  in 
the  primitive  church  ever  dreamed  of  assigning  other  authors  to  these  four 
writings  than  those  who  are  named  in  the  titles;  the  thought  of  those  who 
formulated  these  titles  cannot  therefore,  have  been  that  which  is  thus 
ascribed  to  them.  Moreover,  this  sense  of  according  to  cannot  be  at  all 
suitable  to  the  second  or  the  third  Gospel ;  since  Mark  and  Luke  have 
never  been  regarded  as  the  founders  of  an  independent  personal  tradition, 
but  only  as  the  redactors  of  narrations  proceeding  from  Peter  and  Paul. 
The  title  of  these  two  writings  should  therefore  have  been :  Gospels  ac- 
cording to  Peter  and  according  to  Paul,  if  the  word  according  to  had  really 
had  in  the  thought  of  the  authors  of  the  titles,  the  meaning  which  the 
learned  authorities  whom  we  are  opposing  give  to  it.  The  error  of  these 
authorities  arises  from  the  fact  that  they  give  to  the  term  Gospel  a  sense 
which  it  did  not  have  in  the  primitive  Christian  language.  In  that  lan- 
guage, in  fact,  this  word  did  not  at  all  designate  a  book,  a  writing  relating 
the  coming  of  the  Saviour,  but  the  good-tidings  of  God  to  mankind,  that 
is  to  say,  that  coming  itself;  comp.  e.  g.  Mark  i.  1 ;  Rom.  i.  1.  The 
meaning  of  our  four  titles,  then,  is  not :  "  Book  compiled  according  to 
the  tradition  of,"  but :  "  The  blessed  coming  of  Jesus  Christ,  related  by 
the  care  or  the  pen  of.  .  . "  We  find  the  preposition  Kara  frequently  em- 
ployed as  it  is  here,  to  designate  an  author  himself;  so  in  Diodorus  Sicu- 
lus,  when  he  calls  the  work  of  Herodotus  "The  history  according  to 
Herodotus  (?  na&'  'Ep.  iaropia)  "  or  in  Epiphanius  (Haer.  viii.  4),  when  he 
says  "  The  Pentateuch  according  to  Moses  (fi  Kara  Muvoea  irevrdTevxog)." 
Reuss  presents  by  way  of  objection  the  title  of  the  apocryphal  Gospel, 
evayy.  koto.  Ilerpov.  But  it  is  very  evident  that  the  one  who  wished  to  make 
this  Gospel  pass  under  the  name  of  Peter  intended  to  attribute  the  redac- 
tion to  this  apostle,  and  so  gave  to  the  word  according  to  the  same  sense 
which  we  give.  As  for  the  well-known  phrases  evayy.  Kara,  rovg  666.  dnoa- 
rSXovg,  nad'  'Eppaiovg,  «ar'  A.\yvttTlovq  {according  to  the  twelve  Apostles,  the 
Hebrews,  the  Egyptians),  it  is  clear  that  Kara  designates,  in  these  cases, 
the  ecclesiastical  circle  from  which  these  writings  were  supposed  to  pro- 
ceed, or  that  in  the  midst  of  which  they  were  current.1 

i  We  think  we  may  understand  that  in  the       which  we  read  on  page  14,  Reuss  intended  to 
passage   of  his   work    Histuire    evangUique,       retract  his  former  explanation. 


PROLOGUE. 

I.  1-18. 

Each  evangelist  begins  his  book  in  a  manner  appropriate  to  the  aim  of 
his  narrative.  Matthew  proposes  to  prove  the  right  of  Jesus  to  the  Mes- 
sianic throne.  He  opens  his  story  with  His  genealogy.  Mark  desires 
quite  simply  to  collect  memorials  fitted  to  give  a  comprehension  of  the 
greatness  of  the  personage  whose  active  work  he  describes ;  he  throws 
himself  in  mediam  rem,  by  relating,  without  an  exordium,  the  beginning 
of  the  public  ministry  of  John  and  of  Jesus.  Luke  proposes  to  write  a 
history  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word  :  he  introduces  his  narrative,  after 
the  manner  of  the  Greek  historians,  by  a  preface  in  which  he  gives  an 
account  of  his  sources,  his  method,  and  his  aim.  The  prologue  of  John 
is  likewise  in  close  connection  with  the  aim  of  his  narrative.  We  shall  be 
brought  to  the  understanding  of  this  fact  by  the  study  of  this  remarkable 
passage  which  has  exercised  so  decisive  an  influence  on  the  conception  of 
Christianity  even  to  our  own  day. 

How  far  does  this  prologue  extend  ?  Only  to  ver.  5,  answers  Eeuss. 
The  words  :  There  was  a  man  called  John,  in  ver.  6,  are  the  beginning  of 
the  narrative  ;  this  is  continued  in  ver.  14,  by  the  mention  of  the  incarna- 
tion of  the  Word ;  in  ver.  19  by  the  account  of  the  ministry  of  the  Bap- 
tist, and  finally  with  ver.  85  it  reaches  the  ministry  of  Jesus. 

But  a  glance  at  the  whole  passage  vv.  6-18  shows  that  this  arrangement 
does  not  correspond  with  the  thought  of  the  evangelist.  The  appearance 
of  the  Messiah  is  already  mentioned  before  ver.  14;  since  vv.  11-13 
directly  relate  to  it;  then,  if  the  narrative  had  really  commenced  with 
the  mention  of  John  the  Baptist  in  ver.  6,  why  should  his  testimony  be 
placed  much  later  (in  ver.  15)  ?  The  quotation  made  in  ver.  15  comes 
either  too  early,  if  it  should  be  placed  in  its  historical  situation  which 
will  be  exactly  described  in  vv.  27,  30,  or  too  late,  if  the  author  wishes  to 
connect.it  with  the  mentioning  of  the  appearance  of  the  forerunner  in 
ver.  6.  No  more  can  we  understand,  on  Reuss'  view,  the  appropriateness 
of  the  religious  reflections  contained  in  vv.  16-18,  which  would  strangely 
interrupt  the  narrative  already  begun.  It  is  evident  that  ver.  18  forms 
the  pendant  of  ver.  1,  and  thus  closes  the  cycle  which  is  opened  by 
that  verse.  The  narrative,  then,  does  not  begin  till  ver.  19,  and  vv.  1-18 
form  a  whole  of  a  peculiar  character. 

What  is  the  course  of  the  ideas  expressed  in  this  preamble  ?  For  it  is 
clear  that  we  do  not  have  here  a  mere  pious  effusion  without  any  fixed 
plan. 

240 


chap.  i.  1-18.  241 

Lticke  supposes  two  parts :  The  first,  vv.  1-5,  describing  the  primordial 
existence  of  the  Logos;  the  second,  vv.  6-18,  tracing  summarily  His  his- 
torical appearance.  This  division  does  not  explain  the  two-fold  mention 
of  the  historical  appearance  of  the  Word  ver.  11  (came)  and  ver.  14  (uas 
made  flesh).  It  is  alleged,  no  doubt,  that  the  fact  is  taken  up,  the 
second  time,  more  profoundly  than  the  first.  But  if  the  progress  is  to  be 
historical,  this  does  not  solve  the  difficulty. 

Olshausen  and  Lange  suppose  three  sections :  1.  vv.  1-5,  The  primor- 
dial activity  of  the  Logos ;  2.  vv.  6-13,  His  activity  during  the  course  of 
the  Old  Covenant ;  3.  vv.  14-18,  His  incarnation  ;  then,  His  activity  in  the 
Church.  There  would  be  here  an  historical  plan  which  is  complete  and 
rigorously  followed.  But  the  question  is  whether  the  idea  of  this  progress 
is  truly  derived  from  the  text,  or  whether  it  is  not  imported  into  it.  In 
vv.  6-8  John  the  Baptist  is  named  alone ;  there  is  no  indication  that  he  is 
intended  to  represent  all  the  prophets,  and  still  less  the  Old  Covenant  in 
general.  Besides  it  would  be  necessary,  according  to  this  plan,  to  refer 
the  coming  of  the  Logos,  described  in  ver.  11,  to  the  revelations  of  the 
Old  Covenant,  and  its  regenerating  effects  which  are  spoken  of  in  vv.  12, 
13,  to  the  spiritual  blessings  bestowed  upon  faithful  Jews  before  the  coming 
of  Christ.  Now  it  is  manifest  that  the  terms  employed  by  John  reach  far 
beyond  any  such  application. 

Luthardt  and  Hengstenberg,  rejecting  the  idea  of  an  historical  progress, 
suppose  a  series  of  cycles  which  have  each  of  them  reference  to  the 
totality  of  the  Gospel-history,  but  reproducing  it  under  different  aspects. 
The  first,  vv.  1-5,  embodies  in  a  summary  way,  the  activity  of  the  Logos 
up  to  His  coming  in  the  flesh,  comprehending  therein  the  general  unsuc- 
cessfulness  of  His  ministry  here  on  earth.  The  second  cycle,  vv.  6-13, 
takes  up  the  same  history  again,  calling  to  mind  especially  the  part  of  the 
forerunner,  with  the  purpose  of  coming  thereby  to  the  fact  of  the  Jewish 
unbelief.  The  third,  finally,  vv.  14-18,  decribes  a  third  time  the  work  of 
Jesus  Christ,  and  that  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  extraordinary  bless- 
ings which  it  has  brought  to  believers.  This  plan  certainly  approaches 
more  nearly  to  the  truth  than  the  preceding  ones.  Nevertheless,  it  would 
be  a  quite  strange  procedure  to  open  a  narrative  by  making  a  threefold 
summation  of  it.  Moreover,  if  these  three  cycles  are  really  intended  to 
present  each  time  the  same  subject,  how  does  it  happen  that  they  have 
points  of  departure  and  ending-points  which  are  altogether  different. 
The  starting  point  of  the  first  is  the  eternal  existence  of  the  Logos;  that 
of  the  second,  the  appearance  of  John  the  Baptist  (ver.  6) ;  that  of  the 
third,  the  incarnation  of  the  Logos  (ver.  14).  The  first  ends  in  the  unbe- 
lief of  the  world  (ver.  5);  the  second,  in  the  Israelitish  unbelief  (ver.  11)  ; 
the  third,  in  the  perfect  revelation  of  God  in  the  person  of  the  Son  (ver. 
18).  Three  paragraphs  beginning  and  ending  so  differently  can  scarcely 
be  three  summaries  of  the  same  history. 

Westcott  divides  into  two  parts  :  I.  The  Logos  in  His  eternal  existence 
(ver.  1);  II.  The  Logos  in  His  relation  to  the  creation  (vv.  2-1S).  This 
6econd  part  contains  three  subdivisions :  1.  The  fundamental  facts  (vv.  2- 
16 


242  PROLOGUE. 

5);  2.  The  historical  manifestation  of  the  Word  in  general  (vv.  6-13)  • 
3.  The  incarnation  as  the  object  of  individual  experience  (vv.  14-18). 
This  subdivision  presents  a  fair  progress,  but  the  great  disproportion 
between  the  two  principal  parts  does  not  prepossess  one  in  favor  of  this 
outline.  And  its  chief  difficulty  is  that  of  not  sufficiently  setting  in  relief 
the  central  idea,  the  fact  of  the  incarnation  of  the  Logos,  and  of  estab- 
lishing between  the  coming  of  Christ  in  general  and  His  coming  as  the 
object  of  individual  experience,  a  distinction  which  is  scarcely  natural 
and  is  not  sufficiently  indicated  in  the  text. 

The  Commentary  of  Milligan  and  Moulton  proposes  the  following  plan : 
1.  The  Word  in  Himself  and  in'His  general  manifestations  (vv.  1-5)  ;  2.  The 
Word  appearing  in  the  world  (vv.  6-13);  3.  The  Word  fully  revealed  by 
His  incarnation  (vv.  14-18).  But  the  difference  between  the  last  two 
parts  does  not  distinctly  appear. 

Gess1  supposes  four  parts:  1.  The  primordial  relation  of  the  Logos  to 
God  and  to  the  creation  (vv.  1-4);  2.  The  behavior  of  the  darkness 
towards  Him  (vv.  5-13) ;  3.  His  dwelling  as  Logos  incarnate  among 
men  (vv.  14, 15).  4.  The  happiness  which  faith  in  Him  procures  (vv.  16-18). 
There  would  be,  according  to  this  view,  a  correspondence  between  the 
first  and  the  third  part  (the  Logos  before  and  after  the  incarnation)  and 
in  the  same  way  also  between  the  second  and  the  fourth  (unbelief  and 
faith).  This  arrangement  is  ingenious.  But  does  it  correspond  well  with 
the  divisions  which  are  marked  in  the  text  itself,  especially  so  far  as  the 
last  part  is  concerned  ?  It  seems  not.  Besides,  it  would  appear  that  the 
Logos  before  His  incarnation  met  nothing  but  unbelief,  and  as  incarnate 
nothing  but  faith,  which  is  certainly  not  the  evangelist's  thought. 

Let  us  mention  finally  the  arrangement  presented  by  Dusterdieck ;  1. 
The  Logos  and  the  critical  nature  of  His  appearance  (vv.  1-5) ;  2.  The 
Logos  from  Hia  divine  existence  down  to  His  historical  appearance  (vv. 
6-13) ;  3.  The  Logos  since  His  historical  appearance,  as  the  object  of  ex- 
perience and  of  the  testimony  of  the  Church.  This  plan  is  broad  and 
simple.  But  where  do  we  find  in  the  prologue  the  mentioning  of  the  Old 
Covenant  which  answers  to  the  second  part?  The  person  of  John  the 
Baptist  is  mentioned  on  account  of  his  personal  role,  and  not  as  the  rep- 
resentative of  the  entire  Israelitish  epoch.  Besides,  no  account  is  given, 
according  to  this  course,  either  of  the  double  mention  of  the  appearance 
of  the  Logos  (vv.  11,  14),  or  of  the  quotation  of  the  testimony  of  John 
the  Baptist,  in  ver.  15. 

In  spite  of  the  criticism  of  which  the  arrangement  of  the  prologue 
which  I  have  proposed  has  been  the  object,  I  can  do  no  otherwise  than 
reproduce  it  here,  as  that  which,  according  to  my  view,  corresponds  most 
exactly  with  the  thought  of  the  evangelist.  It  is  summed  up  in  these 
three  words:  the  Logos,  unbelief,  faith.  The  first  part  presents  to  us  the 
eternal  and  creative  Logos,  as  the  person  who  is  to  become  in  Jesus  Christ 
the  subject  of  the  Gospel-history  (vv.  1-4).    The  second  describes  human 

1  Chritti  Perton  uni  Werk  (2d  ed.),  in  the  volume  :  Das  apostolitche  Zeugnisx,  p.  662  t 


chap.  i.  1-14.  243 

unbelief  with  reference  to  Him,  as  it  was  realized  in  the  most  tragic  man- 
ner in  the  midst  of  the  people  best  prepared  to  receive  Him  (vv.  5-11). 
Finally,  the  third  glorifies  faith,  by  describing  the  blessedness  of  those  who 
have  recognized  in  Christ  the  Word  made  flesh,  and  have  thus  gained  re- 
entrance  into  the  communion  with  the  Logos  and  recovery  of  the  life  and 
the  truth  which  man  derived  from  Him  before  he  separated  himself  from 
Him  (vv.  12-18). 

We  shall  see,  by  studying  the  Gospel,  that  these  three  fundamental  ideas 
of  the  prologue  are  precisely  those  which  preside  over  the  arrangement 
of  the  entire  narrative,  and  which  determine  its  grand  divisions. 

It  is  undoubtedly  difficult,  to  tell  whether  we  must  assign  to  ver.  5  its 
place  in  the  first  or  in  the  second  passage.  This  verse  is  the  transition 
from  the  one  to  the  other,  and,  at  the  foundation,  it  appertains  to  both. 
The  twelfth  and  thirteenth  verses  occupy  an  analogous  position  between 
the  second  and  the  third  passage.  Let  us  notice,  however,  that  at  the 
beginning  of  ver.  12  a  Se  (but)  is  found,  the  only  adversative  particle 
of  the  prologue.  The  apostle  seems  to  have  wished,  by  this  means,  to 
mark  clearly  the  opposition  between  the  picture  of  unbelief  and  that  of 
faith.  This  is  a  point  which  seems  to  me  not  to  be  taken  into  account 
by  the  numerous  interpreters  who,  like  Weiss  and  Gess,  connect  vv.  12, 
13,  with  the  second  part,  in  order  to  begin  the  third  at  ver.  14 ;  this  cir- 
cumstance induces  us  rather  to  begin  the  third  part  (that  of  faith)  at 
ver.  12. 

As  the  overture  of  an  oratorio  causes  all  the  principal  themes  to  be 
sounded  which  will  be  developed  in  the  sequel  of  the  work,  and  forms  a 
prelude  thus  to  the  entire  piece,  so  John  in  this  preamble  has  brought  out 
at  the  outset  the  three  essential  factors  of  the  history  which  he  is  going 
to  trace :  the  Logos,  then  the  unbelief  and  the  faith  of  which  his  appear- 
ance has  been  the  object. 

The  general  questions  to  which  this  passage  gives  rise  will  be  treated  in 
an  appendix  following  upon  the  exegesis. 

FIRST    SECTION. 

The  Logos.  1. 1-14. 

It  would  be  difficult  not  to  recognize  in  these  first  verses  an  allusion  to 
the  beginning  of  Genesis.  The  first  words  of  the  two  writings  manifestly 
correspond  with  each  other.  The  beginning  of  which  John  here  speaks 
can  only  be  that  which  Moses  had  made  the  starting-point  of  his  narra- 
tive. But,  immediately  afterwards,  the  two  sacred  writers  separate  from 
each  other.  Starting  from  the  fact  of  the  creation,  Moses  descends  the 
stream  of  time  and  reaches  the  creation  of  man  (ver.  26).  John,  having 
started  from  the  same  point,  follows  the  reverse  course  and  ascends  from 
the  beginning  of  things  to  eternity.  It  is  because  hi?  end  in  view  is  more 
remote  and  because  in  order  to  reach  farther  he  must  start  from  a  point 
farther  back.    The  Jewish  historian  has  in  view  only  the  foundation  of 


244  PROLOGUE. 

the  theocratic  work  in  Abraham,  while  the  evangelist  would  reach  the 
redemption  of  humanity  by  Jesus  Christ.  To  find  Him  who  shall  be  the 
agent  of  this  second  creation,  instead  of  descending  the  course  of  things, 
he  must  ascend  even  beyond  the  beginning  of  the  first  creation. 

At  ver.  1,  John  finds  in  eternity  the  subject  of  the  history  which  he  is 
going  to  relate,  the  Logos ;  at  ver.  2,  he  takes  his  place  with  Him  at  the 
beginning  of  time ;  in  the  3d  verse,  he  shows  Him  to  us  cooperating  in  the 
work  of  creation,  which  is  the  condition  of  that  of  Redemption ;  finally, 
in  the  4th  verse,  he  unveils  the  relation  which  from  all  time  has  existed 
between  that  divine  being  and  humanity,  down  to  the  moment  when  He 
Himself  appeared  as  a  member  of  this  race. 

Ver.  1.  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and 
the  Word  was  God.1  These  three  propositions  follow  each  other  like 
oracles  ;  they  enunciate,  each  of  them,  one  of  the  features  of  the  great- 
ness of  the  Logos  before  His  coming  in  the  flesh.  The  ascending  progres- 
sion which  binds  them  together  is  indicated,  after  the  Hebrew  manner,  by 
the  simple  copula  nai,  mi,  and,  and.  The  h  apxv,  in  the  beginning,  mani- 
festly is  a  reproduction  of  the  first  word  of  Genesis  (beresehith).  It 
therefore  naturally  designates  the  beginning  of  the  existence  of  created 
things.  Some  Fathers  applied  it  to  that  divine  wisdom  which  the  book  of 
Proverbs  describes  as  the  principle  of  the  universe ;  but  nothing  could 
justify  such  an  extraordinary  sense.  Several  modern  writers,  such  as 
Olshausen,  de  Wette,  Meyer,  understand  by  this  beginning  eternity.  In  fact, 
eternity  is,  not  the  temporal  beginning,  but  the  rational  principle,  of 
time.  And  it  is  in  this  sense  that  the  word  apxv  seems  to  be  taken  in 
Prov.  viii.  23 :  "  In  the  beginning,  before  creating  the  earth,"  perhaps 
also  in  1  John  i.  1 :  "  That  which  was  from  the  beginning  (air'  apxvc)." 
Indeed,  as  Weiss  observes,2  the  absolute  beginning  can  be  only  the  point 
from  which  our  thought  starts.  Now  such  a  point  is  not  found  in  time, 
because  we  can  always  conceive  in  time  a  point  anterior  to  that  which 
we  represent  to  ourselves.  The  absolute  beginning  at  which  our  minds 
stop  can  therefore  only  be  eternity  a  parte  ante.  It  is  none  the  less  true, 
however,  that,  as  this  same  author  acknowledges,  the  allusion  to  Gen.  i.  1 
determines  the  word  apxv  as  the  temporal  beginning  of  things.  But  if 
the  notion  of  eternity  is  not  found  in  the  word  itself,  it  is  nevertheless 
implied  in  the  logical  relation  of  this  dependent  phrase  to  the  verb  jjv,  was 
(see  farther  on;  comp.  Keif).  The  Socinians,  in  the  interest  of  their 
doctrinev  have  applied  this  word  apxv  to  the  beginning  of  the  Gospel 
preaching,  as  Mk.  L  1 ;  Luke  i.  2.  This  sense  is  evidently  incompatible 
with  all  that  follows  ;  no  one  any  longer  defends  it  at  the  present  day. — 
The  imperfect  f/v,  was,  must  designate,  according  to  the  ordinary  meaning 
of  this  tense,  the  simultaneousness  of  the  act  indicated  by  the  verb  with 
some  other  act.  This  simultaneousness  is  here  that  of  the  existence  of  the 
Word  with  the  fact  designated  by  the  word  beginning.   "  When  everything 

1  L  and  Gregory  of  Nyssa  read  o  before  s  LchrbucK  der  biblischen  Theologie,  4th  ed., 

0eot.  p.  619. 


chap.  i.  1.  245 

which  has  begun  began,  the  Word  was."  Alone  then,  it  did  not  begin; 
the  Word  was  already.  Now  that  which  did  not  begin  with  things,  that  ia 
to  say,  with  time,  the  form  of  the  development  of  things,  belongs  to  the 
eternal  order.  Reuss  objects,  it  is  true  (Hist,  de  la  theol.  chretienne,  p.  439), 
that,  "  if  we  infer  from  these  words  the  eternity  of  the  Word,  we  must 
infer  also  from  the  beginning  of  Genesis  the  eternity  of  the  world."  This 
argument  is  without  value.  Since  in  Genesis  we  do  not  have  the 
imperfect  was,  but  the  perfect  definite  created.  When  John  passes  to  the 
act  of  creation  (ver.  3),  he  also  abandons  the  imperfect  to  make  use  of 
the  aorist  (kykvero).  The  notion  of  eternity,  as  we  have  seen,  is  not  in  the 
term  in  the  beginning,  but  only  in  the  relation  of  this  term  to  the  imperfect 
was.  The  term  Word,  no  less  than  the  term  in  the  beginning,  serves  to 
recall  the  narrative  in  Genesis  ;  it  alludes  to  the  expression  :  and  God  said, 
repeated  eight  times,  which  is  as  it  were  the  refrain  of  that  magnificent 
poem.  All  these  sayings  of  God  John  gathers  as  if  into  one  single,  living 
word,  endowed  with  intelligence  and  activity,  from  which  emanates  each 
one  of  those  particular  orders.  At  the  foundation  of  all  those  spoken 
divine  words,  he  discovers  the  divine  speaking  Word.  But  while  those 
resound  in  time,  this  exists  above  and  beyond  time.  The  idea  of  this  first 
proposition  is,  therefore,  that  of  the  eternity  of  the  Logos. 

The  salient  word  of  the  second  proposition  is  the  preposition  np6s, 
which,  with  the  objective  word  in  the  accusative,  denotes  the  movement 
of  approach  towards  the  object  or  the  person  serving  to  limit  it.  The 
meaning  is,  therefore,  quite  different  from  what  it  would  have  been,  if 
John  had  said  fierd,  in  the  society  of,  or  avv,  in  union  with,  or  h,  in  the 
bosom  of,  or  napa,  near  to  (xvii.  5).  This  preposition  is  chosen  in  order  to 
express  under  a  local  form,  as  the  prepositions  in  general  do,  the  direction, 
the  tendency,  the  moral  movement  of  the  being  called  the  Word.  His 
aspiration  tends  towards  God.  The  form,  apparently  incorrect,  by  which 
John  connects  a  preposition  of  motion  (towards)  with  a  verb  of  rest  (was), 
signifies  that  this  motion  was"  His  permanent  state,  that  is  to  say,  His 
essence.  Comp.  2  Cor.  v.  8 ;  Gal.  i.  18.  This  use  of  the  preposition  irpdg 
has  evidently  no  meaning  except  as  it  is  applied  to  a  personal  being.  We 
believe  that  we  hear  in  this  an  echo  of  that  plural  of  Genesis  which 
indicates  intimate  communion  (i.  26)  :  "  Let  us  make  man  in  our  image." 
So  in  the  18th  verse  the  term  Son  will  be  substituted  for  Word,  as  Father 
will  take  the  place  of  God.  It  is  not  of  abstract  beings,  of  metaphysical 
principles,  that  John  is  here  pointing  out  the  relation,  but  of  persons. 
The  end  to  which  the  Logos  incessantly  tends  is  rbv  0e6v,  God  (with  the 
article) ;  God  is  thereby  designated  as  a  being  complete  in  Himself,  inde- 
pendently of  the  Word  Himself.  It  is  not  the  Logos  who  makes  Him 
God,  even  though  He  is  inseparable  from  His  Logos.  Hence  it  results 
that  the  existence  of  the  Logos  rests  on  another  principle  than  that  of  a 
metaphysical  necessity.  The  idea  of  this  second  proposition  is  that  of 
the  personality  of  the  Logos  and  of  His  intimate  communion  with  God. 
But  thus  there  is  found  lying  in  the  Divine  existence  a  mysterious  duality. 
This  duality  is  what  the  third  proposition  is  designed  to  resolve. 


246  PROLOGUE. 

In  this  third  proposition  we  must  not  make  6e6c  (God)  the  subject,  and 
6  16yoc  (the  Word)  the  predicate,  as  if  John  meant  to  say  :  And  God  was 
the  Word.  John  does  not  propose  in  this  prologue  to  explain  what  God 
is,  but  what  the  Word  is.  If  the  word  6e6g  (God),  although  the  predicate,  is 
placed  at  the  beginning  of  the  proposition,  it  is  because  in  this  word  is 
contained  the  progress  of  the  idea  relatively  to  the  preceding  proposition. 
An  anonymous  English  writer1  has  recently  proposed  to  place  a  period 
after  rjv  was,  and  to  make  6  loyoc,  the  Word,  the  subject  of  ver.  2.  The  mean- 
ing would  thus  be:  "The  Word  was  in  relation  with  God  and  was  God." 
Then  would  follow  in  ver.  2:.  "And  this  Word  (6  loyoq  ov-oc)  was  in  the 
beginning  with  God."  He  has  not  perceived  that  the  threefold  repetition 
of  the  word  6  loyoq,  the  Word,  in  these  three  first  propositions  was  inten- 
tional, and  that  this  form  has  a  peculiar  solemnity;  comp.  the  similar 
repetition  of  the  word  Kocfzoc,  ver.  10  and  iii.  17.  We  find  here  the  samo 
grammatical  form  as  in  iv.  24  (■n-vev/ia  6  Oedc),  where  the  predicate  is  also 
placed  at  the  beginning  of  the  clause.  The  word  ffro?,  God,  is  used  without 
an  article,  because  it  has  the  sense  of  an  adjective  and  designates,  not  the 
person,  but  the  quality.  Undoubtedly  we  must  guard  against  giving  it,  for 
this  reason,  the  meaning  divine,  which  is  the  signification  of  the  word  deloc. 
The  apostle  does  not  mean  to  ascribe  to  the  Logos  that  which  this  adjec- 
tive would  express,  a  quasi-divinity,  a  condition  intermediate  between  God 
and  the  creature.  This  idea  would  be  incompatible  with  the  strict 
monotheism  of  the  Scriptures.  The  Logos  is  something  different  from 
the  most  perfect  of  men  or  the  most  exalted  of  angels  ;  He  partakes  of 
6e6Tqs  (deity).  It  is  when  this  proposition  is  thus  understood,  that  it 
answers  its  purpose,  that  of  bringing  back  to  unity  the  duality  posited  in 
God  in  the  preceding  clause.  The  idea  contained  in  the  third  proposition 
is  thus  that  of  the  -essential  divinity  of  the  Word. 

To  the  plenitude  of  the  divine  life,  therefore,  there  appertains  the  exist- 
ence of  a  being  eternal  like  God,  personal  like  Him,  God  like  Him ;  but 
dependent  on  Him,  aspiring  towards  Him,  living  only  for  Him.  And 
this  being  it  is  whom  John  has  recognized  in  that  Jesus  whom  he  knew 
as  the  Christ,  and  who  is  to  be  the  subject  of  the  following  narrative 
(ver.  14). 

We  have  given  to  the  word  Logos  the  meaning  Word,  and  not  reason  which  it 
ordinarily  has  with  the  Greek  philosophers.  This  word  signifies  two  things :  1, 
the  reason,  as  being  by  its  very  nature  in  the  line  of  manifestation  ;  and  2,  the 
word,  as  the  instrument  of  the  reason.  But  the  first  of  these  two  meanings  is 
foreign  to  the  N.  T.  Besides,  it  is  excluded  in  this  passage  by  the  relation  to 
Gen.  i.  1.  We  cannot  therefore,  as  has  sometimes  been  attempted,  give  to  this 
word  here  the  philosophical  sense  of  divine  reason  and  apply  it  to  the  conscious- 
ness winch  God  has  of  Himself.  Storr  and  others  have  taken  it  in  the  sense  of 
6  liyuv,  he  who  speaks,  the  supreme  interpreter  of  the  thought  of  God ;  others 
(Bcza,  etc.)  in  that  of  6  Xeyouevoc,  the  one  announced,  the  one  promised.  These  two 
senses  are  grammatically  inadmissible.     Hofmann  and  Luthardt,  with  the  desire 

»2Vie  Prologue  of  St.  John's  Gospel  (Plymouth). 


cnAP.  i.  1.  247 

of  removing  from  John's  Prologue  every  element  of  philosophical  speculation, 
have  taken  this  word  in  the  sense  which  the  expression  Word  of  God  ordinarily  has 
in  the  N.  T. :  the  message  of  salvation.  According  to  Hofmann,  Jesus  is  thus 
designated  because  lie  is  the  true  subject  of  all  the  divine  messages  ;  according  to 
Luthardt,  as  being  the  personified  proclamation,  the  message  and  the  messenger 
identified.  But  what  becomes  of  the  allusion  to  Gen.  i.  1,  according  to  these  two 
views?  Then,  in  the  following  verses  the  work  of  creation  is  spoken  of,  not  that 
of  redemption.  Finally,  if  the  term  Word  had  this  sense,  could  the  proposition 
of  ver.  14 :  the  Word  was  made  flesh,  be  any  longer  understood  ?  Is  it  allowable 
to  suppose  that  John  meant  thereby :  The  contents  or  the  agent  of  the  gospel 
proclamation  was  made  flesh  ?  The  fact  is  that  Jesus  did  not  become  these  contents 
or  this  agent  except  as  following  upon  and  by  means  of  the  incarnation.  The 
anonymous  English  writer  of  whom  we  spoke,  who  evidently  belongs  to  a  party 
professing  the  Unitarian  (anti-Trinitarian)  doctrine,  gives  to  the  word  Logos  the 
sense  of  divine  declaration.  This  is,  in  fact,  the  divine  decree  proclaimed  as  a 
command  which  produced  the  universe  (vv.  1-5),  then  the  prophetic  revelations 
(vv.  6-13),  finally,  the  Christian  redemption  (ver.  14).  All  personality  of  Jesus 
anterior  to  His  earthly  appearance  is  thus  eliminated  from  the  text  of  John.  But 
how,  with  this  sense  of  the  term  Word,  is  the  tjv,  was,  of  ver.  1  to  be  explained  ? 
The  declaration  of  the  divine  will  is  not  eternal ;  iyivEro  must  have  been  used,  as 
in  ver.  3  ;  since  this  is  an  historical  fact.  No  more  comprehensible  are  the 
6econd  and  third  propositions  of  ver.  1.  They  would  signify,  according  to  this 
view,  that  the  creative  command  has  relation  to  God  (npoc),  in  the  sense  that  the 
creation  is  designed  to  reveal  God,  and  other  strange  ideas  of  the  same  kind. 
Beyschlag,  and  several  others  after  him,  recognized  clearly  in  ver.  1  the  idea  of 
the  eternity  of  the  Logos ;  but  they  deny  to  this  being  personality  and  would  see 
in  Him  only  an  abstract  principle,  pre-existing  in  the  divine  understanding,  and 
which  is  realized  in  time  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ.  To  this  sense  the 
Socinian  explanation  comes,  according  to  which  the  Logos  pre-existed  only  in  the 
divine  decree  ;  also  that  of  Ritschl  and  his  school,  which  reduces  the  pre-existence 
of  Christ  to  the  eternal  election  of  His  person  as  the  agent  in  the  establishment  of 
the  kingdom  of  God  on  earth.  Exegetically  speaking,  all  these  explanations 
come  into  collision  with  the  second  and  third  propositions  of  our  verse,  which,  as 
we  have  seen,  both  of  them  imply  the  personality  of  the  Logos.  They  are 
equally  in  contradiction  to  the  words  of  Jesus,  reported  by  our  evangelist,  from 
which  he  has  also  himself  derived  the  idea  formulated  in  this  Prologue, — particu- 
larly that  of  vi.  62  :  "  When  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  man  ascending  where  he  was 
before,"  viii.  58 :  "Before  Abraham  was,  I  am,"  xvii.  5:  "Restore  to  me  the 
glory  which  I  had  with  thee  before  the  world  was."  Either  Jesus  used  this  lan- 
guage or  the  evangelist  ascribed  it  to  Him.  In  the  first  case,  Jesus  gave  a  false 
testimony  respecting  His  person,  even  as  the  Jews  accused  Him  of  doing.  In  the 
second,  the  apostle  allowed  himself  to  make  Him  speak  according  to  his  own 
fancy,  and  this  on  a  subject  of  capital  importance.  For  ourselves,  we  regard 
both  of  these  suppositions  alike  morally  impossible.  Meyer  has  modified  the 
preceding  view  by  supposing  that  the  Logos,  essentially  impersonal,  assumed 
the  character  of  a  person  at  the  moment  of  creation  and  for  the  purpose 
of  performing  that  act.  This  view  has  no  basis  in  the  text  of  the  Prologue  and 
none  in  the  rest  of  the  Scriptures.  The  three  yv,  was,  of  ver.  1  much  rather 
indicate  a  permanent  condition  and  one  identical  with  itself.    Finally,  Neander 


248 


PROLOGUE. 


saw  in  the  Logos  the  organ  by  which  God  reveals  Himself,  as  in  the  Holy  Spirit 
he  saw  the  force  by  which  He  communicates  Himself.  We  do  not  contest  the 
relative  truth  of  this  conception  ;  we  only  find  it  incomplete.  And  for  this  reason  : 
The  second  proposition  of  ver.  1  shows  us  the  Logos  turned  primordially,  not 
ad  extra,  towards  the  world  in  order  to  reveal  God,  but  ad  intra  towards  God 
Himself.  The  Logos  reveals  God  to  the  world  only  after  being  immersed  in  God. 
He  interprets  in  time  the  revelation  of  God  which  he  receives  or  rather  which 
He  Himself  is  eternally. 

To  the  divine  essence,  then,  there  appertains  a  being  who  is  for  God  that  which 
the  word  is  for  the  thought,  that  which  the  lace  is  to  the  soul.  A  living  reflection 
of  God  within,  it  is  He  who  reveals  Him  outwardly.  This  relation  implies  at 
once  the  most  intimate  personal  communion  and  the  most  perfect  subordination. 
How  can  these  two  facts  be  reconciled  ?  Only  on  one  condition  :  That  this  eter- 
nal existence  of  the  Logos  is  a  matter,  not  of  metaphysical  necessity,  but  of  the  free- 
dom of  love.  "  God  is  love."  N  Now  what  He  is,  He  is  altogether,  freely  and  essen- 
tially. It  is  the  same  with  the  Logos.  His  existence  is  a  matter  of  eternal  essence, 
and  of  free  divine  will,  or,  what  unites  these  two  ideas,  of  moral  necessity  (comp. 
xvii.  24).  It  becomes  one  to  remember  that  word  of  Christ  Himself :  "No  one 
knoweth  the  Father  except  the  Son"  (Luke  x.  22  ;  Matt.  xi.  27),  and  that  other 
word  of  the  Apostle  Paul :  "  We  see  now  only  darkly  and  as  in  a  mirror ;  then  we 
shall  know  as  we  have  been  known."  (See  further  the  General  Considerations  on 
the  Prologue,  at  the  end  of  ver.  18.) 


Ver.  2.  "  This  Word  was  in  the  beginning  tvith  God.'" — With  this  Logos 
which  John  has  in  a  manner  just  discovered  in  eternity,  he  takes  his  place 
at  that  beginning  of  time  (ver.  1)  from  which  he  went  backward  even  to 
what  was  before  time,  and  now  he  comes  down  the  course  of  the  ages,  to 
the  end  of  showing  the  Logos  operating  in  the  history  of  the  world  as  the 
organ  of  God,  before  the  moment  when  He  is  Himself  to  appear  on  the 
earth.  The  pronoun  ovtoc,  this  Logos,  reproduces  more  particularly  the 
idea  of  the  third  proposition  of  ver.  1:  this  Word-God;  but  the  apostle 
joins  with  it  that  of  the  first  two,  in  such  a  way  as  to  resume  in  this  verse 
the  substance  of  the  three  propositions  of  ver.  1,  and  thus  to  explain  the 
part  of  Creator  which  he  is  about  to  ascribe  to  the  Logos  in  ver.  3.  There 
is,  therefore,  no  contrast  in  the  pronoun  ovtoc  to  any  other  being  whatever, 
as  Meyer  supposes,  and  as  the  translation  of  Rilliet  would  indicate  :  "  It  is 
he  who  was  ..."  The  allusion  to  the  account  in  Genesis  in  the  words : 
with  God,  is  no  less  evident  here  than  in  ver.  1 ;  comp.  Gen.  i.  26  (let  us 
make,  .  \  .  our  image,  .  .  .  our  likeness). 

Ver.  3.  "All  things  were  made  through  Him,  and  not  one  of  the  things  which 
exist1  was  made  without  Him." — The  work  of  creation  was  the  first  act  of 
the  divine  revelation  ad  extra.  The  preposition  616,  through,  does  not  lower 
the  Logos  to  the  rank  of  a  mere  instrument.  For  this  preposition  is  often 
applied  to  God  Himself  (Rom.  xi.  36 ;  Gal.  i.  1 ;  Heb.  ii.  10).     Neverthe- 


•  D,  some  Fathers  and  some  Gnostics  read 
ovBev  (nothing),  instead  of  ovSe  ev  (not  even  one 
thing).— The  Gnostics,  Heracleon,  Ptolemy, 
•tc,  the  Alex.  Fathers,  Clem.,  Orig.,  as  well 


as  C  D  L  It.  Vulg.,  place  a  period  after  tv  and 
connect  o  •yeyovei-  (that  which  hai  been  made) 
with  the  following  clause. 


chap.  i.  2,  3.  249 

less  it  has  as  its  object  to  reserve  the  place  of  God  beside  and  above  the 
Logos.  This  same  relation  is  explained  and  more  completely  developed 
by  Paul,  1  Cor.  viii.  6 :  "  We  have  but  one  God,  the  Father  from  whom 
(«)  are  all  things,  and  we  are  for  him  (fif) ;  and  one  Lord,  Jesus  Christ, 
through  (<hd)  whom  are  all  things,  and  we  are  through  him."  So,  then,  no 
being  has  come  into  existence  without  having  passed  through  the  intel- 
ligence and  will  of  the  Logos.  But,  also,  the  Logos  derives  everything 
from  the  Father,  and  refers  everything  to  the  Father.  This  is  what  is  at 
once  indicated  by  6id,  through,  which  leaves  room  for  £/c  with  relation  to 
the  Father. — The  word  navra,  all  things,  differs  from  to.  navra  all  the  things, 
in  that  the  second  phrase  can  designate  a  particular  totality  which  must 
be  determined  according  to  the  context  (comp.  2  Cor.  v.  18),  while  the  first 
indicates  the  most  unlimited  universality. — The  term  yivsodai,  to  become, 
forms  a  contrast  with  elvcu,  to  be,  in  vv.  1,2;  it  indicates  the  passage  from 
nothing  to  existence,  as  opposed  to  eternal  existence;  comp.  the  same 
contrast,  viii.  58 :  Before  Abraham  became,  I  am. 

The  second  proposition  repeats  in  a  negative  form  the  idea  which  is 
affirmatively  stated  in  the  first.  This  mode  of  expression  is  frequently 
found  in  John,  especially  in  the  first  Epistle ;  it  is  intended  to  exclude  any 
exception.  The  reading  ovtiev,  nothing,  instead  of  ohdi  'iv,  not  even  one  thing, 
is  not  sufficiently  supported.  It  is,  undoubtedly,  connected  with  the 
explanation  which  places  a  period  immediately  after  this  word  iv  (see  on 
ver.  4). — Some  modern  writers,  Liicke,  Ohhauscn,  de  Wette,  Bdumlrin,  sup- 
pose that  by  this  expression  :  Not  even  one  thing,  John  meant  to  set  aside 
the  Platonic  idea  of  eternal  matter  {bit)).  But  eternal  matter  would  not 
be  a  iv,  one  thing;  it  would  be  the  foundation  of  everything.  It  is  no  less 
arbitrary  to  claim,  as  has  been  claimed,  that  in  this  passage  the  apostle 
aims  to  make  the  world  proceed  from  an  eternally  pre-existing  matter. 
Where  in  the  text  is  the  slightest  trace  of  such  an  idea  to  be  found  ?  Far 
from  holding  that  a  blind  principle,  such  as  matter,  co-operated  in  the 
existence  of  the  universe,  John  means  to  say,  on  the  contrary,  that  every 
existence  comes  from  that  intelligent  and  free  being  whom  he  has  for  this 
reason  designated  by  the  name  Word.  There  is  not  an  insect,  not  a  blade 
of  grass,  which  does  not  bear  the  trace, of  this  divine  intervention,  the  seal 
of  this  wisdom. — "The  foundation  of  the  universe,"  as  Lange  says,  "is 
luminous."     It  is  the  Word! 

We  have,  in  the  translation,  joined  the  last  words  of  the  Greek  phrase: 
6  ytyovev  {which  exists)  to  ver.  3,  and  not,  as  many  interpreters,  to  ver.  4 
(see  on  that  verse).  These  words  seem,  it  is  true,  to  mak  a  useless  repe- 
tition in  connection  with  the  verb  eyevero  (became).  This  apparent  repeti- 
tion has  been  explained  by  a  redundancy  peculiar  to  the  style  of  John. 
But  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  the  Greek  perfect  is,  in  reality,  a  present, 
and  that  the  sense  of  5  ytyovev  is  consequently,  not:  nothing  of  what  has 
come  to  be,  has  come  to  be  without  Him ;  but  nothing  of  what  subsists, 
of  what  now  is  (yeyove),  came  to  be  (eye veto)  without  Him.  There  is  here, 
therefore,  neither  redundance  nor  tautology.  The  apostle  here  has  noth- 
ing to  do  with  theological  speculation  ;  his  aim  is  practical.     He  has  in 


250  PROLOGUE. 

view  the  redemptive  work  (ver.  14);  he  wishes  to  make  it  understood 
that  He  who  is  become  our  Saviour  is  nothing  less  than  the  divine  and 
personal  being  who  was  associated  with  God  in  the  work  of  creation.  But 
the  Word  has  not  been  the  organ  of  God  simply  for  bringing  all  beings 
from  nothing  into  existence ;  it  is  He,  also,  who,  when  the  world  is  once 
created,  remains  the  principle  of  its  conservation,  and  of  its  ulterior  devel- 
opment, both  physical  and  moral. 

Ver.  4:  "In  Him  there  was  life,1  and  the  life  was  the  light  of  men."''  A 
large  number  of  authorities  join  with  this  verse  the  words  6  yiyavev  (that 
tvhich  subsists),  which  we  have  united  with  the  preceding  verse  ;  so  already 
the  Gnostic  Heracleon,  then  Origen,  the  Syriac  versions,  the  MSS.  A  C  D 
(*<  B,  have  no  punctuation),  and  the  Latin  Fathers.  Several  modern  edi- 
tors {Wetstein,  Lachmann,  Westcott,  etc.),  do  the  same.  On  this  view,  we 
can  translate  in  three  ways.  Either,  with  Cyril  of  Alexandria :  "  That 
which  exists  .  .  .  there  was  life  in  him  "  (in  that  existing  being) ;  or : 
"  That  which  exists  in  him  was  living  "  (placing  the  comma  after  avru) ; 
or  finally  :  "  That  which  exists,  had  life  (was  living)  in  him  "  (the  comma 
before  avru).  The  first  meaning  is  grammatically  forced ;  the  thought, 
moreover,  is  an  idle  one.  Of  the  other  two  constructions,  the  simplest, 
the  one  also  which  gives  the  most  natural  meaning,  is  certainly  the  sec- 
ond. For  the  idea  which  needs  to  be  determined  and  explained  by  the 
defining  words  h  avru  (in  him),  is  not  the  subject,  tluit  which  subsists,  which 
is  made  sufficiently  plain  by  ver.  3,  but  the  predicate  tvas  life.  This  last 
interpretation,  however,  is  also  inadmissible.  With  this  meaning,  John 
would  have  said,  not :  was  life  (a  far  too  strong  expression),  but :  "  had  life 
in  him."  The  expression  fai/v  ixeiv  is  familiar  to  him  in  the  sense  of  par- 
ticipating in  life  (iii.  15,  16  ;  v.  24;  vi.  47,  etc.).  The  words  6  ykyovev,  there- 
fore, cannot  in  any  way  belong  to  ver.  4 ;  and  the  subject  of  the  first  propo- 
sition of  this  verse  is,  consequently,  the  word  Cw?,  life :  "  Life  was  in  Him." 
But  what  meaning  is  to  be  given  to  these  words  ?  Must  we,  with  Weiss, 
apply  the  term  life  to  the  life  of  the  Logos  Himself.  The  Logos  had  life, 
as  unceasingly  in  communication  with  the  Father  (ver.  1).  But  why  re- 
turn to  the  description  of  the  nature  of  the  Logos,  already  described  in 
vv.  1,  2,  and  after  His  first  manifestation,  the  act  of  creation,  had  already 
been  mentioned  ?  Weiss  answers  that,  as  vv.  1,  2,  had  prepared  the  way 
for  the  mentioning  of  the  creative  work  (ver.  3),  ver.  4  returns  to  the 
nature  of  the  Logos  in  order  to  prepare  for  that  which  is  about  to  be  said 
in  ver.  5  of  His  illuminating  actjvity.  But  this  alleged  symmetry  between 
ver.  4  and  ver.  1  is  very  forced.  There  is  constant  progress,  and  no  going 
backward.  It  is  an  altogether  simple  course  to  regard  ver.  4  as  continuing 
the  description  of  the  work  of  the  Logos.  The  world,  after  having  received 
existence  through  Him  (ver.  3),  gained  in  Him  the  life  which  it  enjoyed. 
There  is  here  a  double  gradation  :  first,  from  the  idea  of  existence  to  that 
of  life,  then  from  "through  Him"  to  "in  Him."     Compare  an  analogous 

1  K  D,  It.  pi«i«"« :  Syrcur. ;   read   tariv   (there  2  B  omits  in  the  text  tuv  avOpumov  (of  men), 

is),  instead  of  r)v  (there  was).  afterwards  supplied  in  the  margin. 


chap.  i.  4.  251 

double  gradation  in  Col.  i.  16,  17  :  "  All  things  have  been  created  through 
Him  (6C  a'oTov  ennoTai)  .  .  .  ;  and  they  subsist  in  Him  (ev  avrd  awianjuE)." 
Life,  indeed,  is  more  than  existence.  It  is  existence  saturated  with  force, 
existence  in  its  state  of  normal  progress  towards  the  perfect  destination  of 
being.  And  this  first  gradation  is  connected  with  the  second  :  It  is  through 
the  Logos  that  the  world  exists  ;  it  is  in  intimate  relation  with  Him  ("in 
Him  ")  that  it  receives  the  life-giving  forces  by  means  of  which  it  subsists 
and  is  developed.  With  the  same  meaning,  Gess  says  :  "  The  creation  has 
not  been  abandoned  by  the  Logos  subsequently  to  the  act  of  creation ; 
but  He  penetrated  it  with  forces  which  were  able  to  make  it  prosper,  make 
it  move  onward  with  success."  Some  interpreters  apply  the  term  life  here 
solely  to  the  physical  life  (Calvin,  etc.) ;  others,  to  the  spiritual  life  (Origen, 
Hengstenberg,  Weiss).  But  this  distinction  is  out  of  place  in  this  passage. 
For,  as  the  question  in  hand  is  as  to  what  the  Logos  was  for  created  beings, 
it  follows  from  this  fact  that  He  communicates  life  to  each  one  of 
them  in  a  different  measure,  and  in  a  form  appropriate  to  its  aspirations 
and  capacities;  to  some,  physical  life  only;  to  others,  that  life,  and  besides 
one  or  another  degree  of  the  higher  life,  Thus,  the  want  of  the  article 
before  the  word  ^n  (life),  is  very  fully  explained;  the  purpose  being  to 
leave  this  word  in  its  most  unlimited  and  most  variously  applicable  sense. 
The  reading  eon  (is),  instead  of  ijv  (was),  in  the  Sinaitic  and  Cambridge 
manuscripts,  has  been  wrongly  adopted  by  Tischendorf,  in  his  eighth  edi- 
tion ;  it  is  incompatible  with  the  rjv  of  the  following  clause.  It  is,  un- 
doubtedly, a  correction  arising  from  the  interpretation  of  those  who  con- 
nect the  words  b  ykyovt  with  ver.  4;  since  this  perfect  ykyove,  being  in  sense 
a  present,  demands  in  the  verb  of  the  principal  clause  the  present  (is),  and 
not  the  imperfect  {was). 

To  what  moment  of  history  must  we  refer  the  fact  declared  in  this 
proposition  ?  Hengstenberg  and  Briickner  think  that  the  question  is  of  a 
purely  ideal  relation;  the  first,  in  this  sense :  "The  Logos  must  one. day 
(at  the  moment  of  His  incarnation)  become  the  life,  that  is  to  say,  the 
salvation  of  the  world;  "  the  second:  "The  Logos  ivould  have  been  the  life 
of  the  world,  had  it  not  been  for  sin,  which  has  broken  the  bond  between 
the  world  and  Him."  But  these  two  explanations  violate  the  sense  of  the 
word  teas,  which  must  express  a  reality,  as  well  as  the  was  in  vv.  1,  2. 

In  the  first  editions  of  this  Commentary,  suffering  myself  to  be  guided 
by  the  connection  between  ver.  3  and  ver.  4,  I  referred  ver.  4,  with  Meyer, 
to  the  time  which  immediately  followed  the  creation,  to  that  moment  of 
normal  opening  to  life  when  the  Word,  no  longer  meeting  any  obstacle  to 
His  beneficent  action  in  nature  and  in  humanity,  poured  forth  abundantly 
to  every  being  the  riches  of  life;  these  words  designated  thus  the  para- 
disaical condition.  In  this  way,  ver.  4  answered  to  Gen.  ii.,  as  ver.  3  to 
Gen.  i.,  and  ver.  5  to  Gen.  iii.  (the  fall).  The  two  imperfects  was,  in  this 
verse,  are  in  harmony  with  this  view.  I  am  obliged,  however,  to  give  up 
this  view  now,  in  consequence  of  a  change  which  I  have  felt  compelled, 
since  the  second  edition,  to  make  in  my  interpretation  of  ver.  5  (see  on 
that  verse).    If  the  5th  verse  is  referred,  as  I  now  refer  it,  not  to  the  fall 


252  PROLOGUE. 

and  the  condition  which  followed  it,  but  to  the  appearance  of  the  Logos 
at  His  coming  in  the  flesh,  and  to  the  rejection  of  Him  by  mankind,  the 
interval  between  ver.  4  (Paradise)  and  ver.  5  (the  rejection  of  Christ) 
would  be  too  considerable  to  be  included  in  the  simple  nai,  and,  at  the 
beginning  of  ver.  5.  We  must  therefore  necessarily  extend  the  epoch 
described  in  ver.  4  to  the  whole  time  which  elapsed  from  the  creation 
(ver.  3)  to  the  coming  of  Christ  (ver.  5).  During  all  that  period  of  the 
history  of  humanity,  the  world  subsisted  and  was  developed  only  by  virtue 
of  the  life  which  was  communicated  to  it  by  the  Logos.  The  Logos  was, 
as  Schaff  says,  "  the  life  of  every  life."  Not  only  all  existence,  but  all 
force,  all  enjoyment,  all  progress  in  the  creation  were  His  gift. 

The  meaning  of  the  second  proposition  naturally  follows  from  that 
which  has  been  given  to  the  first.  If,  as  Weiss  thinks,  the  first  referred  to 
the  life  which  the  Logos  possesses  in  Himself,  the  second  would  signify 
that  this  same  Logos,  in  so  far  as  He  possesses  the  spiritual  life  through 
the  perfect  knowledge  which  He  has  of  God,  became  the  light  of  men  by 
communicating  it  to  them.  But  John  does  not  say  in  ver.  4  that  the 
Logos  was  Himself  the  light  of  men  ;  he  makes  the  light  proceed  from 
the  life  which  the  Logos  communicated  to  them.  And  this  is  the  reason 
why  he  limits  the  word  life  in  the  second  proposition  by  the  article  :  That 
life,  which  the  world  received  from  the  Logos  become  light  in  men,  it 
opened  itself  in  them  and  in  them  alone,  in  virtue  of  their  inborn  apti- 
tudes, in  the  form  of  light. 

Light,  with  John,  is  one  of  those  extremely  rich  expressions  which  it  is 
difficult  accurately  to  define.  It  does  not  designate  an  exclusively  moral 
idea,  salvation,  as  Hengstenberg  thinks,  or  holiness,  the  true  mode  of  being, 
as  Luthardt  says ;  for  in  these  two  senses  it  could  not  be  sufficiently  distin- 
guished from  life.  _  No  more  is  it  a  purely  intellectual  notion  :  reason 
(Calvin,  de  Wette),  for  John  could  not  say,  in  this  sense  :  God  is  light,  (1  Ep. 
i.  5).  In  this  last  passage,  John  adds  :  "  And  there  is  in  him  no  darkness." 
If  he  means  by  this  last  term  moral  evil,  the  depravity  of  the  will 
uniting  with  it  the  inward  falsehood,  the  darkening  of  the  intelligence 
which  results  from  it,  the  light  will  be,  to  his  thought,  moral  good,  holi- 
ness, together  with  the  inward  clearness,  the  general  intuition  of  the 
truth  which  arises  from  a  good  will ;  let  us  say  :  the  distinct  consciousness 
of  oneself  and  of  God  in  the  common  sphere  of  good,  the  possession  of 
the  true  view-point  with  respect  to  all  things  through  uprightness  of  heart, 
holiness  joyously  contemplating  .its  own  reality  and  thereby  all  truth. 
This  inward  light  is-  an  emanation  of  the  life,  of  the  life  as  moral  life. 
Here  is  the  explanation  of  the  objective  phrase  :  of  men;  for  men  alone, 
as  intelligent  and  free  beings,  as  moral  agents,  are  capable  of  the  enjoy- 
ment of  such  light.  This  word  would  certainly  have  a  very  natural 
application  to  the  primitive  state  of  man  in  paradise.  But  it  can  be 
extended  to  the  human  condition  in  general,  even  after  the  fall.  God  has 
continued  to  reveal  to  man  "the  end  and  the  way  "  (Gess).  From  exist- 
ence, as  it  appeared  in  man,  determined  by  the  consciousness  of  moral 
obligation,  there  has  sprung  up  in  all  times  and  in  all  places  a  certain 


chap.  i.  5.  253 

light  concerning  man,  concerning  his  relations  with  God,  concerning  God 
Himself,  and  concerning  the  world  ;  comp.  as  to  the  Jews  vii.  17,  and  as 
to  the  Gentiles  x.  1G;  xi.  52;  so  also  in  Paul:  Rom.  i.  19,  21;  1  Cor.  i.  21; 
Acts  xiv.  17.  The  various  forms  of  worship  and  the  indisputable  traces 
of  a  certain  moral  sense,  even  among  peoples  the  most  degraded,  are  the 
proofs  of  this  universal  light  emanating  from  the  Logos.  All  the  rays  of 
the  sentiment  of  the  beautiful,  the  true  and  the  just  which  have  illumi- 
nated and  which  ennoble  humanity,  justify  the.  expression  of  John  (comp. 
ver.  10).  It  is  this  fundamental  truth  which  was  formulated  by  the 
Fathers  (Justin,  Clem.  Alex.)  in  their  doctrine  of  the  loyoq  awepfiariKdc. 
There  is  nothing  more  contrary  to  the  idea  of  an  original  dualism  which 
Baur  and  his  school  ascribe  to  John,  than  this  expression  :  of  men,  which 
embraces  all  humanity  without  any  distinction. 


SECOND    SECTION. 
Unbelief.  I.,  5-11. 

This  Logos,  light  of  the  world,  appears  in  the  world  buried  in  the 
darkness  of  sin  ;  He  is  not  recognized  and  is  rejected  (ver.  5).  And  yet 
God  had  taken  all  precautions  to  prevent  such  a  result  (vv.  6-8).  But 
the  impossible  is  realized  (vv.  9-11). 

Ver.  5 :  "And  the  light  shines  in  the  darkness,  and  the  darkness  apprehended 
it  not."  ! — What,  then,  is  this  darkness  'ckotio)  which  all  at  once  fills  the 
scene  of  the  world  created  and  enlightened  by  the  Word?  It  is  impossi- 
ble, with  some  interpreters  of  Baur's  school,  to  think  of  eternal  darkness, 
of  a  kingdom  of  evil  co-eternal  with  that  of  good.  Ver.  3  is  positively 
opposed  to  this  :  everything  that  is,  without  exception,  is  the  work  of  the 
Logos.  But  John,  as  vv.  3,  4  have  proved,  wrote  for  readers  who  were 
acquainted  with  the  account  in  Genesis.  We  must  also  explain  ver.  5 
according  to  this  account.  The  darkness  of  which  the  evangelist  speaks 
is  the  subjection  to  sin  and  falsehood  in  which  humanity  lives  in  consequence 
of  the  fact  of  the  fall,  narrated  in  Gen.  iii.  As  the  Logos  was  the  principle 
of  life  and  light  for  the  world,  moral  obscurity  invaded  it,  as  soon  as 
humanity  had  ceased  to  live  in  Him  (ver.  3) ;  there  was  darkness.  The 
Logos,  however,  none  the  less  perseveres  in  His  office  of  illuminator  (ver.  4), 
and  He  ends  by  appearing  Himself  on  this  theatre  which  He  has  never 
ceased  to  enlighten.  Formerly,  I  referred  the  present  <paivei,  it  shines,  to  the 
beneficent  action  of  the  Logos  before  His  incarnation  :  this  is  the  thought 
which  I  have  just  shown  to  be  contained  in  the  second  clause  of  ver.  4. 
This  view  approaches  the  explanation  of  de  Wette,  who  refers  the  <paiva, 
shines,  to  the  revelations  of  the  0.  T.,  and  that  of  the  interpreters  who 
apply  it  to  the  moral  light  granted  to  the  heathen  by  means  of  reason  and 
conscience.  Three  reasons  have  made  me  give  up  this  explanation :  1. 
The  present  (paivei,  shines,  is  only  naturally  explained,  especially  in  con- 

*  B  and  5  Mnn.  read  ovtov  (the  Logos)  instead  of  ovto  (the  light).  . . 


254  PROLOGUE. 

trast  to  the  two  past  tenses  of  ver.  4,  if  we  refer  it  to  a  present  fact ;  now 
this  fact  contemporaneous  with  the  moment  when  the  evangelist  writes 
can  only  be  the  earthly  appearance  of  Christ  and  of  the  Gospel  proclama- 
tion which  perpetuates  the  glory  of  it  here  on  earth.  2.  The  very  strik- 
ing parallel  passage,  1  Ep.  ii.  8 :  "  Because  the  darkness  is  passing  away, 
and  the  true  light  already  shineth  "  (^  <t>aivei),  can  apply  only,  according 
to  the  context,  to  the  Gospel  era,  and  it  thus  determines  the  meaning  of 
the  same  expression  in  the  Prologue.  3.  The  truly  decisive  reason,  to 
my  view,  is  the  significant  asyndeton  between  ver.  5  and  ver.  G.  The  absence 
of  a  logical  particle  most  frequently  indicates,  in  Greek,  a  more  emphatic 
and  more  developed  reaffirmation  of  the  thought  already  expressed. 
Now,  it  does  not  appear  to  me  possible  to  interpret  otherwise  this  form 
of  expression  in  this  passage.  The  historical  fact  so  abruptly  introduced 
in  ver.  6  by  the  words:  " There  appeared  a  man  ....,"  can  only  be 
thus  mentioned  with  the  design  of  giving  through  history  the  proof  of  the 
thought  declared  in  ver.  5 ;  and  as  the  development  which  opens  at  ver. 
6  and  closes  in  ver.  11  relates  wholly  to  the  rejection  of  Christ  by  Israel, 
it  follows  that  the  second  part  of  ver.  5,  the  theme  of  this  development, 
can  only  relate  to  this  same  fact.  Thus  the  (j>ali>ci,  shines,  is  understood  by 
Ewald,  Hengstenberg,  Luthardt,  Weiss.  Some  interpreters  think  that  the  act 
of  shining  can  apply  to  the  action  of  the  Logos  alike  before  and  during 
His  earthly  life ;  so  Olshausen,  Meyer,  Westcott, — the  last  writer  extending 
the  meaning  of  the  present  shines  from  the  moment  of  the  creation  even 
to  the  consummation  of  things.  But  the  two  modes  of  illumination,  inter- 
nal and  external,  which  would  be  thus  attributed  to  the  Logos  here,  are 
of  too  heterogeneous  a  nature  to  make  it  possible  to  unite  them  in  the 
same  term.  We  have,  moreover,  already  seen  that  the  present  shines 
cannot  naturally  apply  to  the  time  which  preceded  the  incarnation. 

The  nai,  and,  simply  indicates  the  calm  continuity  of  the  work  of  the 
Logos  throughout  these  different  stages ;  the  office  which  He  accomplished 
in  the  depths  of  the  human  soul  (ver.  4)  has  ended  in  that  which  He  has 
just  accomplished  as  Messiah  in  the  midst  of  the  Jewish  people  (vv.  5-11). 
Weiss  and  Gess  object  to  this  explanation,  that  it  forces  us  to  give  to  the  word 
to  <j>ug,  the  light,  a  different  sense  in  ver.  4  and  ver.  5  :  there,  the  light  as  a 
gift  of  the  Logos  ;  here,  the  light  as  being  the  Logos  Himself.  But  in  ver. 
4  the  question  is  of  a  light  emanating  from  the  life,  and  consequently 
impersonal,  while  in  ver.  5,  John  speaks  of  the  light  as  visibly  and  per- 
sonally, present.  This,  then,  is  his  meaning:  that  that  moral  good  the 
ideal  of  which  the  Logos  caused  to  shine  in  the  human  soul,  He  has 
come  to  realize  in  Himself  here  on  earth,  and  thus  to  display  it  in  all  its 
brightness  (ver.  5).  John  uses  this  notion  of  light  with  great  freedom. 
We  find  the  same  two  senses  united  in  the  same  verse  in  viii.  12:  "I  am 
the  light  of  the  world  " — this  is  the  sense  of  the  light  in  our  ver.  5 — and 
"  He  that  followeth  me  shall  have  the  light  of  life  " — this  is  the  sense  of 
the  word  in  ver.  4.  The  active  form  (paivei,  shines,  is  purposely  employed 
rather  than  the  middle  (paivcrai,  which  would  signify :  appears,  shows  itself. 
John  means,  not  that  it  has  appeared,  but  that  from  this  time  forward  it 


chap  I.  5.  255 

pours  forth  its  brilliancy  in  the  darkness  of  humanity,  striving  to  dissipate 
the  darkness. 

The  second  part  of  ver.  5  is  explained  in  two  opposite  ways,  according 
to  the  two  opposite  meanings  which  are  given  to  the  verb,  Kari?xij3ei>.  This 
verb,  which  signifies  to  lay  hands  on,  to  seize,  may  denote  a  hostile  act : 
to  seize  in  order  to  restrain,  to  overcome,  or  a  friendly  act :  to  seize  in 
order  to  appropriate  to  oneself,  to  possess.  The  first  of  these  meanings  is 
that  which  the  ancient  Greek  interpreters  (Origen,  Chrysostom,  etc.),  adopt : 
for  a  long  time  abandoned,  it  is  now  again  preferred  by  some  modern 
writers  {Lange,  Weiss,  Westcott)  ;  "  And  the  darkness  did  not  succeed  in  re- 
straining, in  extinguishing  this  light."  In  favor  of  this  meaning  the  ex- 
pression in  xii.  35  is  cited  :  "  Walk  while  you  have  the  light,  lest  the  dark- 
ness overtake  you  (/caraAd/Jj?  in  the  hostile  sense)."  But  even  in  that  pass- 
age, the  meaning  of  this  verb  is  not  overcome  ;  Jesus  speaks  of  the  night, 
not  as  restraining  the  day,  but  as  overtaking  the  traveler  who  started  on  his 
journey  too  late.  This  single  example  which  is  cited,  therefore,  is  not 
really  one.  Besides,  this  meaning  is  excluded  by  the  context  when  prop- 
erly understood.  We  have  seen  that  the  asyndeton  between  vv.  5  and  G, 
implies  a  very  close  relation  of  thought  between  them.  Now,  this  rela- 
tion exists  only  as  ver.  5  states  a  fact  which  already  refers,  like  all  that 
which  follows,  to  the  development  of  unbelief,  not  of  faith.  This  it  is 
which  prevents  us  from  translating  :  "  and  the  darkness  did  not  restrain 
it."  In  order  to  find  in  what  follows  the  evidence  of  a  similar  idea,  we 
must  pass  beyond  the  entire  development  of  vv.  6-11,  and  proceed  to  dis- 
cover it  in  the  fact  mentioned  in  vv.  12,  13  :  "  To  all  those  who  received 
him  .  .  . ;  "  which  is,  of  course,  impossible,  and  the  more  so  as  ver.  12  is 
connected  with  ver.  11  by  the  adversative  particle  6e,  Besides,  if  the  apos- 
tle wished  to  express  the  idea  which  is  attributed  to  him,  he  had  for  this 
purpose  the  very  natural  word  nart  j«i>,  to  check,  to  repress :  comp.  Rom  i.  18. 
It  is  fitting,  therefore,  to  apply  to  the  word  here  the  other  meaning  which 
is  the  prevailing  one  throughout  the  whole  New  Testament.  Comp.  Phil, 
iii.  12, 13  (to  attain  the  end)  ;  1  Cor.  ix.  24  (to  lay  hold  of  the  prize)  ;  Rom. 
ix.  30  (to  obtain  the  righteousness  of  faith).  In  the  same  sense  it  is  also 
used  in  Sirach  xv.  1-7  :  aaTalanfiaveiv  ccxpiav  (to  attain  to  wisdom).  I  lay 
stress  only  on  the  passages  where  the  verb  is  used,  as  it  is  here,  in  the 
active.  The  sense  of  comprehend  in  which  it  is  taken  in  the  middle  (Acts 
iv.  13 ;  x.  34  ;  Eph.  iii.  18)  rests  also  on  the  meaning  of  the  verb  which 
we  here  adopt.  John  means,  accordingly,  that  the  darkness  did  not  suffer 
itself  to  be  penetrated  by  the  light  which  was  shining  in  order  to  dissipate  it. 
To  understand  this  somewhat  strange  figure,  we  must  recall  to  mind  the 
fact  that  the  word  darkness  here  denotes,  not  an  abstract  principle,  but 
living  and  free  beings,  corrupted  humanity.  Understood  in  this  sense, 
this  second  proposition  is  the  summary  statement  which  is  developed  in 
the  following  passage,  vv.  G-ll  ;  it  has  its  counterpart  in  the  second  prop- 
osition of  ver.  11.  The  choice  of  the  slightly  different  term  napi'kali&v 
received  (ver.  11),  in  order  to  express  nearly  the  same  idea  as  KaTklafcv  of 
ver.  5,  will  be  easily  explained.     The  mi,  and,  which  joins  this  proposition 


256  PROLOGUE. 

to  the  preceding  one,  takes  the  place,  as  is  often  the  case,  of  a  tie,  but. 
John  presents  the  course  of  things,  not  from  the  point  of  view  of  the 
changing  conduct  of  mankind  towards  God,  but  from  that  of  the  faithful 
and  persevering  conduct  of  the  Logos  towards  mankind.  The  aorist  nare- 
Zafcv  stands  out  in  relief  on  the  general  basis  of  the  present  <j>aivei,  as  a 
particular  and  unique  act,  an  attitude  taken  once  for  all.  To  the  view  of 
the  evangelist,  the  refusal  of  the  mass  of  mankind  to  allow  themselves  to 
be  enlightened  by  the  Gospel  is  already  an  accomplished  fact.  Comp.  the 
saying  of  Jesus  in  iii.  19,  which  is,  as  it  were,  the  text  from  which  are  derived 
the  present  words  :  "  The  light  is  come  into  the  world,  and  men  loved  the 
darkness  rather  than  the  light,  because  their  works  were  evil."  The  apos- 
tle passes  now  to  the  account  of  the  manner  in  which  this  decisive  moral 
fact  stated  in  ver.  5  was  accomplished  and  how  it  was  consummated  in  Is- 
rael. And  that  he  may  make  the  gravity  of  it  thoroughly  apprehended, 
he  begins  by  calling  to  mind  the  extraordinary  means  which  God  adopted, 
in  order,  as  it  would  seem,  to  render  it  impossible,  vv.  6-8. 

Ver.  6.  "  There  appeared  a  man  sent,  from  God ;  his  name  was  John." — 
The  forerunner  is  not  mentioned  here  as  representing,  either  the  whole  of 
the  Jewish  economy,  or  prophetism  in  particular,  as  is  thought  by  the 
interpreters  who  endeavor  to  find  an  historical  plan  in  the  Prologue.  The 
apostle  speaks  of  the  forerunner  only  with  respect  to  his  personality  and 
from  the  point  of  view  of  his  relation  to  that  of  the  Saviour. — The  mention 
of  the  forerunner  in  this  place  with  such  particularity  is,  as  Weiss  observes, 
characteristic  of  the  Apostle  John,  to  whom  the  Baptist  had  served  as  a 
guide  to  conduct  him  to  Christ. — The  word  eyeve-o,  became,  appeared,  points 
to  an  historical  fact,  and  might  thus  form  a  contrast  with  the  verbs  r/v,  teas, 
which  in  ver.  1  designated  the  eternal  existence  of  the  Word  ;  but  between 
them  the  two  yv  of  .ver.  4  have  intervened.  The  word  avdpunoQ,  a  man, 
might  also  be  the  antithesis  to  the  divine  subject  who  has  alone  been 
brought  forward  up  to  this  point;  yet  there  is  nothing  which  indicates 
this  with  sufficient  positiveness. — The  analytic  form  eyivero  aneoTalfikvoq 
sets  forth  the  importance  of  the  person  of  John  in  a  better  way  than  the 
simple  aKEOTalr),  which  would  have  reference  only  to  his  mission.  He  was 
the  first  prophetic  person  raised  up  by  God  since  a  time  long  past.  On 
the  word  sent,  comp.  iii.  28:  "Because  I  am  sent  before  him,"  as  well  as 
Mai.  iii.  1,  from  which  passage  this  expression  is  certainly  drawn.  The 
name  John  (God  shows  grace)  marked  the  character  of  the  era  which  was 
about  to  open.  Yet  it  is  not  for  this  reason  that  the  evangelist  mentions 
the  name  here.  He  means  simply  to  say  :  "This  man, of  whom  I  speak 
to  you,  is  the  one  who  is  known  by  you  all  under  the  name  of  John."  It 
is  remarkable  that  our  evangelist  uses  simply  the  name  John,  without 
adding  the  epithet  Baptist,  which  had  early  become  inseparable  from  this 
name,  as  we  see  from  the  Synoptics,  and  even  from  the  Jewish  historian, 
Josephus.1  Does  not  Meyer  reasonably  conclude  from  this  omission  (In- 
trod.  p.  31),  that  the  author  of  our  Gospel  must  have  known  the  forerun- 

>"  John  surnamed  the  Baptist."    Antiq.  xviii.  5,  2. 


chap.  i.  6-8.  257 

ner  otherwise  than  through  the  general  tradition  of  the  Church?  If  he 
had  really  known  him  before  the  public  voice  had  given  him  this  title, 
it  was  very  natural  that  he  should  designate  him  simply  by  his  name. 
Oredner  thought  that,  inasmuch  as  the  title  Baptist  served  in  the  Church  to 
distinguish  the  forerunner  from  another  person  of  the  same  name  (John 
the  apostle),  the  latter  omitted  the  title  in  order  that  he  might  not  attract 
attention  to  himself  by  the  contrast;  an  ingenious  observation,  but,  per- 
haps, less  well-founded  than  the  preceding.  After  having  introduced  this 
personage,  the  author  describes  his  role : 

Ver.  7.  "  This  one  came  as  a  witness,  to  bear  witness  to  the  light,  that  all  might 
believe  through  him." — The  pronoun  ovroq,  this  one,  sums  up  all  the  state- 
ments of  the  preceding  verse,  as  ovtoq  of  ver.  2  summed  up  all  those  of 
ver.  1.  The  verb  fjlde,  came,  indicates  a  more  advanced  step  than  the 
kyevcTo,  appeared,  of  ver.  6 ;  the  entrance  of  John  upon  his  public  activity. 
— This  character  of  witness  has  such  importance,  in  the  view  of  the  evan- 
gelist, that  he  presents  it,  the  first  time,  without  an  object :  as  a  witness  or 
(more  literally),  for  testimony  ;  the  second  time,  with  an  indication  of  the 
object  of  the  testimony.  The  first  expression  makes  prominent  the  quality 
of  witness  in  itself  (in  contrast  to  the  superior  dignity  of  the  personage 
who  is  to  follow).     The  second  completes  the  idea  of  this  testimony. 

This  idea  of  testimony  is  one  of  the  fundamental  notions  of  our  Gospel. 
It  is  correlative  to  and  inseparable  from  that  of  faith.  Testimony  is  given 
only  with  a  view  to  faith,  and  faith  is  impossible  except  by  means  of 
testimony.  The  only  faith  worthy  of  the  name  is  that  which  fastens  itself 
upon  a  divine  testimony  given  either  in  act  or  in  word.  Testimony 
resembles  the  vigorous  trunk  of  the  oak;  faith,  the  slender  twig  which 
embraces  this  trunk  and  makes  it  its  support.  But  did  the  light  need  to 
be  attested,  pointed  out?  Does  not  the  sun  give  its  own  proof  of  itself? 
Certainly,  if  the  Word  had  appeared  here  below  in  the  glory  which  belongs 
to  Him  {tlie  form  of  God,  Phil.  ii.  6),  the  sending  of  a  witness  would  not 
have  been  necessary.  But  He  was  obliged  to  appear  enveloped  in  a  thick 
veil  {the  flesh,  ver.  14) ;  and,  in  the  condition  of  blindness  into  which  sin 
had  plunged  man  (ver.  5,  the  darkness),  he  could  not  recognize  Him  except 
with  the  help  of  a  testimony.  The  evangelist  adds :  That  all  might  believe 
through  him;  evidently  :  Believe  on  Christ  through  John,  and  not  on  God 
through  Christ,  as  Grotius  and  Eivald  thought.  The  question  in  this  verse 
is  not  of  the  office  of  Christ,  but  of  that  of  John.  When  the  critics  of 
Baur's  school  charge  our  author  with  setting  up,  in  agreement  with  the 
Gnostics,  two  kinds  of  men,  of  opposite  origins  and  destinies,  the  psychical 
and  the  pneumatical,  they  seem  to  be  forgetful  of  these  words :  "  That  all 
might  believe  through  him." — We  find  here  a  new  indication  of  the  part 
which  the  forerunner  had  played  in  the  development  of  the  writer's  own 
faith.  To  the  affirmation  of  the  fact,  John  adds,  as  in  ver.  3,  a  negative 
proposition,  designed  to  exclude  every  opposite  idea. 

Ver.  8.  "  He  tvas  not  the  light ;  but  [he  came']  to  bear  witness  to  the  light." — 
The  emphasis  is  not,  as  Meyer  and  Weiss  think,  on  the  verbal  idea,  was, 
but  on  the  subject  He,  in  contrast  with  the  other  personage  (ver.  9). 
17 


258  PROLOGUE. 

Hence  the  choice  of  the  pronoun  eiceivog,  which  has  always  with  John  a 
strongly  emphatic  and  even  oftentimes  exclusive  sense.  It  is  in  vain,  as 
it  seems  to  me,  that  Weiss  denies  this  special  use  of  the  pronoun  knelvog  in 
our  Gospel.  In  a  multitude  of  cases,  this  commentator  is  obliged  to  have 
recourse  to  veritable  feats  of  skill  in  order  to  maintain  that  this  pronoun 
always  designates  a  subject  or  an  object  which  is  more  remote,  in  opposi- 
tion to  one  that  is  nearer;  comp.  e.  g.  i.  40;  v.  39;  vii.  45,  and  many 
other  passages  which  we  shall  notice,  and  where  the  sense  which  is  claimed 
by  Weiss  is  not  applicable.  The  Iva,  in  order  that,  depends,  according  to 
Meyer  and  Weks,  on  an  f/Xde  (came)  understood,  or  it  is  even,  according  to 
Luthardt,  independent  of  any  verb,  as  often  in  John  (ix.  3 ;  xiii.  18 ;  xv. 
25).  But  this  independence  can  never  be  other  than  apparent ;  a  purpose 
must  always  depend  on  some  action.  And  it  is  unnatural  to  go  very  far 
in  search  of  the  verb  fade,  came,  while  the  verb  rjv,  was,  can  easily  take 
the  sense  of  "  was  there  "  (aderat)  and  serve  as  a  point  of  support  for  the 
in  order  that;  comp.  vii.  39,  where  Weiss  himself  renders  tjv  by  aderat. 

It  appears  to  me  scarcely  admissible  that  by  this  remark  John  desires 
simply  to  set  forth  the  absolute  superiority  of  Jesus  to  John  the  Baptist, 
(Meyer,  Hengstenberg) ;  or  that,  as  Weiss  thinks,  we  have  here  again  a  point 
merely  describing  the  experience  of  the  author  himself  as  an  old  disciple 
of  the  forerunner.  The  negative  form  is  too  emphatic  to  be  explained 
thus,  and  the  analogous  passages  i.  20 ;  iii.  25  ff.,  compared  with  Acts  xiii. 
25,  and  with  the  remarkable  fact  related  in  Acts  xix.  3,  4,  lead  us  rather 
to  suppose  a  polemic  design  in  opposition  to  persons  who  attributed  to 
the  forerunner  the  dignity  of  Messiah  (comp.  Introd.  pp.  213,  214). 

The  testimony  of  John  should  have  opened  the  door  of  faith  to  all,  and 
rendered  unbelief  impossible.  And  yet  the  impossibility  is  realized,  and 
even  under  the  most  monstrous  form.  This  is  what  is  developed  in  vv. 
9-11. 

Ver.  9.  "  The  true  light,  which  enlightens  every  man,  came  into  the  world." 
I  think  I  must  positively  decide  for  this  interpretation,  making  the  parti- 
ciple Epxofxevov,  coming,  the  predicate  of  the  verb  f/v,  was :  was  coming,  for  : 
came.  This  analytic  form  implies  an  idea  of  continuance.  At  the  mo- 
ment when  John  bore  witness  of  the  light,  it  was  in  course  of  coming ;  it 
was  properly  coining ;  thus  Bengel,  Lilcke,  de  Wette,  Weiss,  Westcotl.  This 
verse,  thus  understood,  leaves  to  the  expression  to  come  into  the  world  the 
ordinary,  and  in  some  sort  technical,  sense  which  it  has  in  John  (iii.  19 ;  vi. 
14;  ix.  39;  xyiii.  37,  etc.).  Some  .interpreters,  while  adopting  the  same 
construction,  refer  this  term  :  came  into  the  world  to  the  long  coming  of 
the  Logos  through  the  ages,  by  means  of  His  revelations  during  the 
whole  course  of  the  Old  Covenant  (Keim,  Westcott).  But  this  sense  would 
lead,  as  we  shall  see,  to  a  tautology  with  the  first  proposition  of  the  fol- 
lowing verse.  Other  meanings  given  to  fjv  ipxd\iivov  by  Tholuck:  "He 
was  going  to  come,"  and  by  Luthardt,  "  He  was  to  come,"  are  hardly  nat- 
ural. Meyer,  with  some  ancient  and  modern  interpreters  (Origen,  Chry- 
tostom,  Augustine,  Cabin,  Beza,  etc.),  adopts  an  entirely  different  construc- 
tion ;    he  joins  the  ipx6/ievov  with  the  substantive    av&ponov  -.    "  which 


chap.  i.  9,  10.  259 

enlightens  every  man  coming  into  the  world."  In  this  case  to  <puc,  the  light, 
is  taken  as  the  subject  of  yv,  which  is  translated  in  the  sense  of  aderat 
"  was  present."  "  The  true  light,  which  enlightens  every  man  coming 
into  the  world,  was  present;"  or  to  <pug  is  made  the  predicate  of  ?}v,  by 
giving  to  this  verb  as  its  subject  a  <j><oc  to  be  supplied  from  the  preceding 
verse :  "  This  light  (to  which  John  bore  witness,  ver.  8)  was  the  true  light 
which  enlightens  every  man  coming  into  the  world."  The  uselessness  of 
this  appended  phrase,  which  is  self-evident,  has  been  often  alleged  against 
this  connection  of  kpx^^evov,  coming,  with  the  substantive  every  man;  but 
wrongly,  as  I  showed  in  my  first  edition,  where  I  adopted  this  explana- 
tion. For  these  words  thus  understood  would  signify  that  the  light  of  the 
Logos  is  a  divine  gift  which  every  man  brings  with  him  when  he  is  born, 
— that  the  matter  in  question  is,  accordingly,  an  innate  light.  This  idea, 
however,  is  not  lost  in  the  other  construction ;  it  is  still  found  in  the 
words  :  which  enlightens  every  man.  The  two  constructions  of  jjv,  either  in 
the  sense  of  ivas present,  or  by  supplying  with  it  a  subject  derived  from  the 
preceding  verse,  are  not  very  natural.  Finally,  the  logical  connection 
with  ver.  S  is  closer  with  the  first  meaning :  John  came  to  testify  of  the 
light  (ver.  8) :  for  at  that  very  moment  it  was  on  the  point  of  appearing 
in  the  world  (ver.  9).  In  my  second  edition,  I  attempted  a  third,  or  even 
a  fourth  construction,  by  attaching  the  participle  tpx6fievov,  not  to  rjv,  nor 
to  av&purvov,  but  to  <puTi^ei,  to  enlighten,  making  it  a  sort  of  Latin  gerundive  : 
"  which  enlightens  every  man  by  coming  (itself)  into  the  world."  But  this 
use  of  the  participle  can  scarcely  be  justified  by  sufficient  examples. 

The  word  alqdivSg,  veritable,  appears  here  for  the  first  time.  It  is  one 
of  the  characteristic  terms  of  John's  style.  Of  twenty-eight  passages  in 
which  we  meet  with  it  in  the  N.  T.,  twenty-three  belong  to  John,  nine  in 
the  Gospel,  four  in  the  first  Epistle,  and  ten  in  the  Apocalypse  (Milligan). 
It  is  also  used  in  the  classics.  It  designates  the  fact  as  the  adequate  real- 
ization of  the  idea.  It  contrasts,  therefore,  not  the  true  with  the  false, 
but  the  normal  appearance  with  the  imperfect  realization.  The  light  of 
which  John  speaks,  consequently,  is  characterized  by  it  as  the  essential 
light,  in  opposition  to  every  light  of  an  inferior  order.  The  expression  : 
which  enlightens  every  man,  if  applied  to  the  Gospel  revelation,  would 
designate  the  universalistic  character  of  the  Gospel ;  the  present  enlightens 
would  be  that  of  the  idea.  It  is  more  natural,  however,  to  find  here 
again  the  notion  which  was  expressed  in  ver.  4:  the  Logos,  as  the  internal 
light,  enlightening  every  man,  illuminating  him  by  the  sublime  intuitions 
of  the  good,  the  beautiful  and  the  true.  The  term  every  man  gives  again 
a  formal  contradiction  to  the  assertion  of  Baur's  school  which  makes  John 
a  dualistic  philosopher. 

The  Logos  when  coming  into  the  world  did  not  arrive  there  as  a 
stranger.  By  profound  and  intimate  relations  with  humanity,  He  had 
prepared  for  His  advent  here  on  earth,  and  seemed  to  be  assured  of  a 
favorable  reception : 

Ver.  10.  "  He  tvas  in  the  world  and  the  world  had  been  made  by  Him,  and 
the  world  knew  Him  not."    A  contrast  is  evidently  intended  between  the 


260  PROLOGUE. 

first  words  of  this  verse  and  the  last  words  of  ver.  9.  This  contrast  is  the 
occasion  of  the  asyndeton.  "The  Logos  came  into  the  world "  (ver.  9) ; 
"  and  yet  he  had  long  been  there  "  (ver.  10  a)  ;  "  and  also  the  world  was  His 
work"  (ver.  10  b).  The  first  two  propositions  set  forth  that  which  is 
incredible,  apparently  impossible,  in  the  result  which  is  stated  in  the  third 
(10  c) :  "  and  the  world  did  not  know  him."  Weiss  regards  the  being  in 
the  world  (10  a)  as  the  consequence  of  coming  into  the  world  indicated  in 
ver.  9.  But  the  asyndeton  between  the  two  verses  9  and  10  does  not  suit 
this  logical  relation  (see  Keil);  and,  in  this  case,  to  what  fact  does  the 
expression:  "He  was  in  the  world  "  refer '?  It  must  necessarily  be  to  a 
fact  posterior  to  the  birth  of'  Jesus.  This  is  held,  indeed,  by  de  Wette, 
Meyer,  Astie,  Weiss,  and  others;  they  apply  the  first  proposition  (10a)  to 
the  presence  of  Jesus  in  Israel  at  the  moment  when  John  the  Baptist  was 
carrying  on  his  ministry,  and  the  third  (10  c)  to  the  ignorance  in  which 
the  Jews  still  were  at  that  moment  of  the  fact — so  important — of  the  pres- 
ence of  the  Messiah ;  so,  in  the  same  sense,  where  John  himself  says  to 
them  (ver.  26)  :  "  There  is  present  in  the  midst  of  you  one  whom  you  do  not 
know.'"  I  do  not  believe  it  possible  to  suggest  a  more  inadmissible  inter- 
pretation. In  the  first  place,  that  ignorance  in  which  the  people  then 
were  with  regard  to  the  presence  of  the  Messiah  had  nothing  reprehen- 
sible in  it,  since  this  presence  had  not  yet  been  disclosed  to  them  by  the 
forerunner ;  it  could  not  therefore  be  the  ground  of  the  tone  of  reproach 
which  attaches  to  this  solemn  phrase  :  "  And  the  world  knew  him  not !  " 
Then,  the  imperfect  would  have  been  necessary :  "  And  the  world  ivas  not 
knowing  him,"  and  not  the  aorist,  which  denotes  an  accomplished  and 
definite  fact.  Moreover,  it  would  be  necessary  to  give  to  the  word  world 
an  infinitely  narrower  meaning  than  in  the  preceding  clause,  where  it 
was  said :  "  and  the  world  (the  universe)  had  been  made  by  him." 
Finally,  how  are  we  to  justify  the  juxtaposition  of  two  facts  so  heterogene- 
ous as  that  of  the  creation  of  the  world  by  the  Word  (10  b)  and  that  of  His 
presence,  then  momentarily  unknown,  in  Israel !  There  is  no  harmony 
between  the  three  clauses  of  this  verse  except  by  referring  the  first  and  the 
third  to  facts  which  are  no  less  cosmic  and  universal  than  that  of  the  crea- 
tion of  the  world,  mentioned  in  the  second.  This  is  the  reason  why  we  do 
not  hesitate  to  refer  the  first  to  the  presence  and  action  of  the  Logos  in 
humanity  before  His  coming  in  the  flesh,  and  the  third  to  the  criminal 
want  of  understanding  in  humanity,  which,  in  its  entirety,  failed  to 
recognise  in  Christ  the  Logos,  its  creator  and  illuminator,  who  had 
appeared  in  its  midst.  This  return  backward  to  that  which  the  Logos  is 
for  the  universe  (comp.  ver.  3),  and  especially  for  man  (comp.  ver.  4),  is 
intended  to  make  conspicuous  the  unnatural  character  of  the  rejection  of 
which  He  was  the  object  here  on  earth.  The  world  was  His  work,  bear- 
ing the  stamp  of  His  intelligence,  as  the  master-piece  bears  the  stamp  of 
the  genius  of  the  artist  who  has  conceived  and  executed  it ;  He  was  filling 
it  with  His  invisible  presence,  and  especially  with  the  moral  light  with 
which  He  was  enlightening  the  human  soul  .  .  .  and  behold,  when  He 
appears,  this  world  created  and  enlightened  by  Him  did  not  recognize 


CHAP.   I.    11.  261 

Him  !  One  might  be  tempted  to  apply  the  words  :  "  did  not  know  him," 
to  the  fact  indicated  in  Eom.  i.  21-23 ;  Acts  xiv.  1G ;  xvii.  30 ;  1  Cor.  i.  21, 
the  voluntary  ignorance  of  the  heathen  world  with  respect  to  God  as 
revealed  in  nature  and  conscience.  In  that  case  we  should  be  obliged  to 
translate :  "  had  not  known  him,"  and  to  see  in  this  sin  of  the  heathen 
world  the  prelude  to  that  of  the  Jewish  world,  indicated  in  the  following 
verse.  But  the  non-recognition  and  rejection  of  the  Logos  as  such  cannot 
be  made  a  reproach  to  the  world  before  His  personal  incarnation  in 
Jesus  Christ.  The  "matter  in  question,  then,  is  the  rejection  of  the  Logos 
in  His  earthly  appearance.  This  general  and  cosmic  rejection  was 
already  regarded  by  Jesus  as  a  consummated  fact  in  the  time  of  His  min- 
istry (iii.  19 ;  xv.  18)  ;  how  much  more  must  it  have  seemed  so  at  the 
moment  when  John  was  writing  !  The  Church  formed  among  mankind 
only  an  imperceptible  minority,  and  this  proportion  between  the  true 
believers  and  the  unbelievers  has  remained  the  same  in  all  times  and  in 
all  places. 

The  masculine  pronoun  ainov,  him,  refers  to  the  neuter  term  to  p«if,  the 
light,  which  proves  that  avrov  also  must  be  taken  as  masculine.  This 
grammatical  anomaly  arises  from  the  fact  that  the  apostle  has  now  in  view 
the  light  in  so  far  as  it  had  personally  appeared  in  Jesus.  This  is,  like- 
wise, the  reason  why  he  substitutes  the  word  lyvu  knew,  for  KaTtlafte  laid 
hold  of  (ver.  5),  although  the  idea  is  fundamentally  the  same.  One  lays 
hold  of  a  principle,  one  recognizes  a  person. 

The  failure  to  recognize  the  Logos  as  He  appeared  in  Jesus  is  stated  at 
first,  in  the  third  proposition  of  ver.  10,  in  an  abstract  and  summary 
way  as  a  general  fact.  Then,  the  fact  is  described  in  ver.  11  under  the 
form  of  its  most  striking  historical  and  concrete  realization. 

Ver.  11.  "  He  came  to  His  own  and  they  that  were  His  own  received  Him 
not."  A  relation  of  gradation  might  be  established  between  this  verse  and 
the  preceding,  if  this  verse  were  applied  to  the  rejection  of  the  natural 
revelation  by  the  heathen  :  "  And  there  was  something  still  worse  !  "  But 
the  asyndeton  is  unfavorable  to  this  sense,  which  we  have  already  refuted. 
It  leads  us  rather  to  find  here  a  more  emphatic  reaffirmation  of  the  fact 
indicated  in  ver.  10  :  "  The  world  did  not  know  Him."  Yes;  that  rejec- 
tion took  place,  and  where  it  seemed  the  most  impossible — in  the  dwell- 
ing-place which  the  Logos  had  prepared  for  Himself  here  below !  The 
words  His  home,  His  own,  by  setting  forth  the  enormity  of  the  Jewish 
crime,  characterize  it  as  the  climax  of  the  sin  of  humanity.  The  word 
ijMe,  came,  refers  to  the  public  ministry  of  Jesus  in  Israel.  Td  I6ta,  liter- 
ally :  His  home  (comp.  xix.  27).  Before  coming  to  the  earth,  the  Logos 
prepared  for  Himself  there  a  dwelling-place  which  peculiarly  belonged  to 
Him,  and  which  should  have  served  Him  as  a  door  of  entrance  to  the  rest 
of  the  world.  Comp.  Ex.  xix.  5,  where  Jehovah  says  to  the  Jews :  "  You 
shall  be  my  property  among  all  peoples,"  and  Ps.  exxxv.  4:  "  The  Lord  hath 
chosen  Jacob  for  Himself."  Malachi  had  said  of  Jehovah,  in  describing  the 
Messianic  advent  as  His  last  appearance  :  "  And  the  Lord  whom  ye  seek 
shall  suddenly  come  to  His  temple  ;  behold,  he  cometh"    (iii.  1).     But  this 


262  PROLOGUE. 

door  was  closed  to  Him,  and  even  by  those  who  should  have  opened  it  to 
Him:  ol  Idiot,  His  oivn,  His  servants,  the  dwellers  in  His  house,  which  He 
had  Himself  established.  In  the  same  way  as  rd  I6ia  His  home  designates 
Canaan  together  with  the  entire  theocratic  institution,  ol  idtoi,  His  own,  de- 
signates all  the  members  of  the  Israelitish  nation.  Paul  also  calls  them 
oiKeioi,  members  of  tlie  household,  domestici,  familiares,  in  contrast  with  tjhot 
and  TTapoiKoi,  strangers  and  sojourners.  Never,  it  seems,  had  the  Jews  bet- 
ter deserved  that  title  of  honor  from  Jehovah,  "  His  people,"  than  at  the 
moment  when  Jesus  appeared.  Their  monotheistic  zeal  and  their  aver- 
sion to  idolatry  had  reached,  at  that  epoch  the  culminating  point.  The 
nation  in  general  seemed  to  form  a  Messianic  community  altogether  dis- 
posed to  receive  "  Him  who  should  come,"  as  a  bride  welcomes  her  bride- 
groom. The  word  napa/MfifiavELv,  receive  to  oneself  (xiv.  3),  well  expresses 
the  nature  of  the  eager  welcome  which  the  Messiah  had  a  right  to  expect. 
That  welcome  should  have  been  a  solemn  and  official  reception  on  the 
part  of  the  whole  nation  hailing  its  Messiah  and  rendering  homage  to  its 
God.  If  the  home  prepared  had  opened  itself  in  this  way,  it  would  have 
become  the  centre  for  the  conquest  of  the  world.  Instead  of  this,  an  un- 
heard of  event  occurred.  Agamemnon  returning  to  his  palace  and  falling 
by  the  stroke  of  his  faithless  spouse — this  was  the  tragic  event  par  excel- 
lence of  pagan  history.  What  was  that  crime  in  comparison  with  the 
theocratic  tragedy !  The  God  invoked  by  the  chosen  nation  appears  in 
His  temple,  and  He  is  crucified  by  His  own  worshipers.  Notice  the 
finely  shaded  difference  between  the  two  compound  verbs,  KaralajifidvELv, 
to  apprehend,  ver.  5,  which  corresponds  with  the  light  as  a  principle,  and 
irapalafi[5avEiv,  to  welcome,  Avhich  characterizes  the  reception  given  to  the 
master  of  the  house.  Respecting  the  /ecu,  and,  the  same  observation  as  in 
vv.  5  and  10.  The  writer  has  reached  the  point  of  contemplating  with 
calmness  the  poignant  contrast  which  the  two  facts  indicated  in  the  two 
propositions  of  this  verse  present. 

Two  explanations  opposed  to  that  which  we  have  just  been  developing 
have  been  offered.  Some  interpreters,  Lange,  for  example,  refer  the 
coming  of  the  Word  indicated  in  this  verse,  to  the  manifestations  of  Jeho- 
vah and  the  prophetic  revelations  in  the  Old  Testament.  Others,  as  Reuss, 
while  applying  the  words  "  He  came,"  just  as  we  do,  to  the  historical 
appearing  of  Jesus  Christ,  think  that  the  ISioi,  His  own,  are  not  the  Jew"s, 
but  "  men  in  general,  as  creatures  of  the  pre-existent  Word  "  (Hist,  de  la 
thiol,  chrit  t.  II.,  p.  476).  Reuss  even  describes  the  application  of  the 
words  rd  Uia,  ol  idtoi,  to  the  Jews,  as  "  a  strange  error  of  the  ordinary  exe- 
gesis." He  is,  however,  less  positive  in  his  last  work ;  he  merely  says: 
"  An  interpretation  may  be  maintained  according  to  which  there  is  no 
question  here  of  the  Jews.  So  far  as  the  first  view  is  concerned,  it  is  ex- 
cluded by  the  word  i]We,  He  came,  which  can  only  designate,  like  the  same 
word  in  ver.  7,  an  historical  fact,  the  coming  of  Christ  in  the  flesh.  We 
shall  see,  moreover,  that  the  following  verses  cannot  be  applied  to  the  time 
of  the  Old  Covenant,  as  must  be  the  case  according  to  the  sense  which 
Lange  gives  to  ver.  11.    Reuss'  interpretation  seems  to  him  to  be  required, 


chap.  i.  11.  263 

first,  by  a  difficulty  which  he  finds  in  the  baoi,  all  those  who,  of  ver.  12,  if  by 
His  own,  of  ver.  11,  the  Jews  are  to  be  understood — we  shall  examine  this 
objection  in  its  proper  place — and  then,  by  the  general  fact  that,  accord- 
ing to  our  Gospel,  "  there  are  no  special  relations  between  the  Word  and 
the  Jews  as  such."  We  believe  that  we  can  prove,  on  the  contrary,  that 
the  fourth  Gospel,  no  less  than  the  first,  establishes  from  the  beginning  to 
the  end  an  organic  relation  between  the  theocracy  and  the  coming  of 
Christ  in  the  flesh.  The  following  are  some  of  the  principal  passages 
which  do  not  allow  us  to  question  this :  ii.  16,  "The  house  of  my  Father  ;  " 
iv.  22,  "  Salvation  is  from  the  Jews  ;  "  v.  39,  "  The  scriptures  bear  tvitness 
of  me  ;  "  v.  45-47  ;  viii.  35,  56 ;  x.  2,  3 ;  xii.  41 ;  xix.  36,  37.  All  these  say- 
ings are  incompatible  with  the  thought  of  Reuss  and  prove  that  the  ex- 
pressions His  abode,  His  own,  are  perfectly  applicable  to  the  land  of  Israel 
and  the  ancient  people  of  God. 

THIRD  SECTION. 

Faith,  I.  12-18. 

The  appearance  of  the  Word,  therefore,  did  not  succeed  in  scattering  the 
darkness  of  mankind  and  overcoming  the  resistance  of  Israel  as  a  nation. 
Nevertheless,  His  mission  could  not  fail.  At  the  moment  when  the  peo- 
ple which  He  had  prepared  for  Himself  turns  away  from  Him,  a  family 
of  believers,  divinely  begotten,  appears  and  clusters  about  Him.  This  is 
the  contrast  pointed  out  by  vv.  12  and  13.  Ver.  14  a  explains  the  regen- 
erating power  of  this  faith :  it  is  that  its  object  is  nothing  less  than  the 
absolutely  unique  fact  of  the  incarnation  of  the  Word.  And  the  sequel 
proves  that  this  fact,  wonderful  as  it  is,  is  nevertheless  certain;  certain,  be- 
cause He  was  beheld  with  rapture  by  eye-witnesses,  to  whose  number  the 
author  belongs  (ver.  14  b);  — certain,  because  He  was  pointed  out  by  a 
divine  herald,  who  had  received  the  mission  to  proclaim  Him  (ver.  15); 
certain,  because  He  is  an  object  of  experience  for  the  whole  Church,  which 
through  all  the  heavenly  gifts  which  it  receives  from  this  unique  man, 
called  Jesus  Christ,  verifies  in  Him  all  the  characteristics  of  the  Divine 
Logos  (vv.  16-18).  This  triple  testimony  of  eye-witnesses,  of  the  official 
witness,  and  of  the  Church  itself  is  the  immovable  foundation  of  faith. 
This  third  part  of  the  Prologue,  then,  is  indeed  the  demonstration  of  the 
certainty  and  the  riches  of  faith.  The  majority  of  the  commentators 
make  this  third  part  begin  only  at  ver.  14,  with  the  words :  "And  the 
Word- was  made  flesh."  But  this  way  of  separating  the  sections  has  two 
serious  difficulties :  1,  vv.  12,  13  become  a  dragging  appendage  to  the 
preceding  section  into  which  they  do  not  enter  logically,  since  the  domi- 
nant idea  of  that  section  is  the  unbelief  which  the  Logos  encountered  here 
on  earth ;  and  2,  this  third  mention  of  the  coming  of  the  Word  (comp. 
vv.  5  and  11),  not  having  any  introduction,  has  somewhat  of  an  abrupt 
and  accidental  character.  It  is  quite  otherwise  when  vv.  12, 13  are  joined 
with  the  following  section,  which  treats  of  faith.    They  form  the  antitiie- 


264  PROLOGUE. 

sis  to  ver.  11  and  thus  the  transition  from  the  first  to  the  second  section 
of  the  Prologue.  Thus  the  third  and  principal  mention  of  the  fact  of 
the  incarnation  is  occasioned  by  the  expression  of  the  idea  of  faith  in  vv. 
12,  13. 

Ver.  12.  But,1  to  all  those  who  received  Him,  to  them  He  gave  the  'power 
of  becoming  children  of  God,  to  those  who  believe  on  His  name. — Ae,  but, 
expresses  not  merely  a  gradation,  but  an  opposition.  This  is  con- 
firmed by  the  antithesis  of  the  verb  eXajiov,  received,  to  ov  irapD.afiov, 
did  not  welcome  (ver.  11) ;  as  well  as  by  that  of  the  subject  baoi  (literally, 
as  many  as  there  are  who),  to  ol  ISioi,  His  own  (ver.  11).  This  last  term 
designated  the  nation  as  a  body ;  the  pronoun  baoi  indicates  only  individ- 
uals. By  its  official  representatives,  the  nation,  as  such,  refused  to  wel- 
come Jesus ;  from  that  moment  faith  took  on  the  character  of  a  purely 
individual  and,  so  to  speak,  sporadic  act.  This  is  expressed  by  the  pro- 
noun boot,  all  those  who.  But  the  boot  are  not,  therefore,  only  the  few 
members  of  the  Jewish  people  who  did  not  share  the  national  unbelief; 
they  are  all  believers  (roiq  marevovaiv  ver.  12b),  whether  Jews  or  Greeks, 
whom  John  contemplates  as  united  into  one  family  of  the  children  of 
God  {vfie'iq  navrec,  we  all,  ver.  16).  Reuss  (Hist,  de  la  theol.  chret.  t.  ii.,  p. 
475)  thinks  that  if  the  term  His  own  (ver.  11),  designates  the  Jews,  and 
not  men  in  general,  we  must  also  conclude  from  this  fact  that  the  believ- 
ing baoi  are  only  Jews.  But  John  does  not  say  bum  t%  av-uv,  all  those 
from  among  them,  but :  all  those  who,  in  general.  When  the  Messiah  is 
once  rejected  by  unbelieving  Israel,  there  is  henceforth  only  humanity, 
and  in  it  individual  believers  or  unbelievers.  This  substitution  of  indi- 
vidual faith  for  the  collective  and  national  welcome  of  the  chosen  people, 
which  was  wanting,  is  precisely  that  which  occasions,  in  this  verse,  the 
use  of  the  simple- verb  £Xa[3ov,  received,  instead  of  the  compound  Trape?.aj3ov, 
welcomed  (ver.  11).  The  compound  had  in  it  something  grave  and  solemn, 
which  was  suited  to  an  official  reception,  such  as  the  Israelitish  authori- 
ties should  have  given  in  the  name  of  the  entire  theocratic  nation  joy- 
ously introducing  its  divine  King  into  His  palace,  the  temple  at  Jerusalem; 
while  the  simple  Xa/ufiaveiv,  which  signifies  to  take,  to  seize  in  passing  and, 
as  it  were,  accidentally,  is  perfectly  apposite  to  the  notion  of  individual 
faith.  In  this  verse,  therefore,  John  substitutes,  in  the  same  manner  as 
St.  Paul  does  in  all  his  epistles,  the  great  idea  of  Christian  individualism, 
with  its  universal  and  human  character,  for  Jewish  nationalism,  with  the 
narrow  particularism  in  which  it  remained  confined.  By  marking  the 
contrast  {St,  but)  between  the  unbelief  of  the  Israelite  nation  and  the  faith 
of  individual  believers,  whoever  they  may  be,  Jews  or  heathen,  the  apostle 
would  succeed  in  making  the  greatness  of  the  blessings  understood  of 
which  the  rebellious  people  were  deprived,  although  they  had  been  called 
first  of  all  to  enjoy  them.  Through  rejecting  the  Word,  they  were  deprived 
of  a  participation  in  the  life  of  God  which  He  brought  in  Himself.  In 
fact,  this  divine  guest,  the  Logos,  conferred  on  those  who  received  Him 

1  Ac  is  omitted  by  D  and  some  Fathers. 


chap.  i.  12.  2G5 

two  privileges  worthy  of  Himself:  first,  a  new  position  in  relation  to  God, 
and  then,  by  reason  of  this  position,  the  power  to  participate  in  His 
divine  life. 

The  word  it-ovala,  authority,  competency,  denotes  more  than  a  simple  pos- 
sibility, and  less  than  a  power  properly  so  called.  What  is  meant  is  a 
new  position,  that  of  being  reconciled,  justified,  which  the  believer  gains 
through  faith,  and  through  this  it  is  that  he  receives  the  power  of  asking 
for  and  receiving  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  means  of  which  he  becomes  a  child 
of  God.  The  expression  tzkvov  deov  {child  of  God),  which  is  used  by  John, 
includes  more  than  vlog  (son),  which  is  used  by  Paul.  The  meaning  of 
this  latter  word  does  not  go  beyond  the  idea  of  adoption  (vlodeala),  the  right 
of  sonship  which  is  accorded  to  the  believer,  while  the  word  t&kvov  (child), 
from  TiKreiv  (to  beget),  implies  the  real  communication  of  the  divine  life. 
Comp.  Gal.  iv.  G  :  "  Because  ye  are  sons,  God  sent  forth  the  Spirit  of  His  Son 
into  your  hearts  ;  "  a  sentence  which  is  equivalent  to  saying :  "  Because  you 
are  sons  (viol) — by  adoption — God  has  made  you  children  (tekvo)  by  regen- 
eration." This  ore  (because),  of  Paul,  expresses  precisely  the  relation  of 
the  idea  contained  in  the  word  k^ovaia  in  John.  How  can  Hilgenfeld  ven- 
ture, in  the  face  of  the  word  yevsadai  (become),  to  impute  to  John  the  dual- 
istic  system,  according  to  which  the  children  of  God  are  such  by  nature, 
and  before  all  faith  in  the  historical  Christ ! 

The  idea  of  child  of  God,  in  the  concrete  sense  in  which  it  here  appears, 
is  foreign  to  the  Old  Testament.  The  words  father  and  child,  in  the  rare 
cases  in  which  they  are  there  employed  (Ps.  ciii.  13 ;  Is.  lxiii.  16 ;  Jer.  xxxi. 
20;  Hos.  xi.  1),  express  only  the  sentiments  of  affection,  tenderness,  com- 
passion. This  observation  is  sufficient  to  set  aside  the  opinion  of  the  in- 
terpreters, who,  like  Lange,  with  the  purpose  of  reserving  the  idea  of 
the  incarnation  for  ver.  14,  refer  these  verges  12  and  13  to  the  faithful  ones 
of  the  Old  Covenant.  The  expressions  receive  the  Word  and  become  children 
of  God  are  far  too  strong  to  be  applied  to  the  Israelitish  saints  and  would 
be  in  flagrant  contradiction  to  the  declaration  of  Jesus  (Matt.  xi.  11,  12) ; 
and  to  the  reflections  of  John  himself  (i.  17  and  vii.  39). 

The  figurative,  and  consequently,  somewhat  vague,  term  receive,  required 
to  be  explained,  precisely  defined ;  for  the  readers  must  know  accurately 
the  means  by  which  they  may  place  themselves  among  the  number  of  the 
baoL  (all  those  who).  Hence  the  appended  phrase  :  rolg  nicrEvovatv  .  .  .  ,  (to 
those  who  believe  on  His  name).  To  believe — this  is  the  means  of  the  ?.afjf3dveiv, 
the  mode  of  this  individual  reception.  Only,  instead  of  connecting  this 
explanation  with  the  verb,  they  received,  the  author  unites  it  with  the  per- 
sons of  the  baoi  (to  those  who).  "  It  is  one  of  the  peculiarities  of  John's 
style,"  Luthardt  observes,  to  define  the  moral  condition  by  means  of  which 
an  act  is  accomplished,  by  an  explanatory  appendix  added  to  one  of  the 
words  which  depend  on  the  principal  verb.  As  a  point  of  style,  this  is 
perhaps  heavy;  but  as  an  expression  of  thought,  it  is  forcible.  See  the 
same  construction  in  iii.  13 ;  v.  18 ;  vii.  50,  etc.  We  have  sought  to  give 
the  force  of  this  turn  in  the  translation.  The  relation  between  these  two 
acts,  to  receive  and  to  believe,  is  a  close  one ;  the  first  is  accomplished  by  the 


266  PROLOGUE. 

very  fact  of  the  second.  But  why,  then,  is  an  act  of  faith  necessary  for 
the  reception  of  the  Word?  Because  His  divine  character  is  hidden  from 
sight  by  the  veil  of  the  flesh  which  envelops  it.  It  can  only  be  discerned, 
therefore,  by  a  perception  of  a  moral  nature.  Made  attentive  by  the  tes- 
timony, the  man  fixes  his  gaze  upon  Christ,  and,  discerning  in  Him  the 
divine  stamp  of  holiness,  he  surrenders  himself  personally  to  Him.  Tins 
is  faith. 

The  object  of  faith,  as  here  indicated,  is  not  the  Logos ;  it  is  His  name. 
The  name,  the  normal  name  of  the  being,  is  the  true  expression  of  His 
essence,  the  perfect  revelation  of  His  peculiar  character.  This  name  is 
thus  the  means  which  other  beings  have  of  knowing  Him,  of  forming 
their  idea  of  His  person.  Hence  it  is  that  this  idea  is  sometimes  called 
the  name,  in  a  relative  and  secondary  sense,  as  in  the  prayer :  Hallowed  be 
thy  name.  In  our  passage,  'John  means :  those  who  believe  in  the  revela- 
tion which  He  has  given  of  Himself,  as  Logos,  who  have  discerned  under 
the  veil  of  the  flesh  the  manifestation  of  that  divine  being,  the  only-begotten 
Son  (vv.  14, 18),  and  have,  because  of  this  perception,  surrendered  them- 
selves to  Him.  After  having  thus  explained  the  term  received,  the  apostle 
develops  in  ver.  13  the  idea  of  the  expression  children  of  God. 

Ver.  13.  "  Who  were  born,1  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of 
the  will  of  man,  but  of  God."  It  seems,  at  the  first  glance — because  of  the 
past  verb  :  who  were  born — that  the  apostle  places  regeneration  before  faith, 
which  is,  of  course,  impossible.  But,  as  Meyer  rightly  observes,  the  rela- 
tive ol  (ivlio),  does  not  refer  to  the  words  roig  ■Kt.arevovaiv  (those  who  believe), 
but,  by  a  constructio  ad  sensum,  to  the  neuter  substantive  reava  Oeov  (children 
of  God).  Ver.  13  unfolds  this  term  :  children  of  God,  first  in  a  negative  re- 
lation, by  means  of  three  cumulative  phrases  which  have  a  somewhat 
disdainful  and  even  contemptuous  character.  Does  John  mean  there- 
by to  stigmatize  the  false  confidence  of  the  Jews  in  their  character  as 
children  of  Abraham  ?  This  does  not  seem  to  me  probable.  Three  ex- 
pressions to  set  forth  the  idea  of  the  theocratic  birth  would  be  useless. 
Besides,  the  Prologue  has  too  lofty  a  flight,  too  universal  a  bearing,  to 
admit  of  so  paltry  a  polemic.  John  means  rather  to  set  forth  with  empha- 
sis the  superiority  of  the  second  creation  which  the  Logos  comes  to 
accomplish  on  the  foundation  of  the  first.  There  are  two  humanities,  one 
which  propagates  itself  in  the  way  of  natural  filiation  ;  the  other,  in  which 
the  higher  life  is  communicated  immediately  by  God  Himself  to  every 
believer.  It  is,  therefore,  ordinary  birth,  as  the  basis  of  natural  human- 
ity, which  John  characterizes  in  the  first  three  expressions.  The  first 
phrase :  not  of  blood,  denotes  procreation  from  the  purely  physical  point 
of  view ;  the  blood  is  mentioned  as  the  seat  of  natural  life  (Lev.  xvii.  1). 
The  plural  alfidruv  has  been  applied  either  to  the  duality  of  the  sexes,  or 

1  Irenseus  cites  this  passage  three  times  in  reading— that  of  our  text — to  a  falsification  of 
the  form:  Qui  natus  est.  etc.,  applying  these  Gnostic  (Valentinian)  origin.     But  the  re- 
words, thus,  to  Christ  Himself;  and  Tertul-  ceived    reading  is  found  in  all  our  critical 
Han  so  firmly  believes  in  the  authenticity  of  documents  without  exception, 
this  reading,  that  he  attributes  the  opposite 


chap.  i.  13,  14.  267 

to  the  series  of  human  generations.  It  should  rather  be  interpreted  as 
the  plural  ydJUzft,  in  the  words  of  Plato  (Legg.  x.,  p.  887,  D):  en  h  yahaS-i 
rpe<p6/xFvoi — the  plural  suggesting  the  multiplicity  of  the  elements  which 
form  the  blood  (see  Meyer).  The  two  following  phrases  are  not  subordinate 
to  the  first,  as  St.  Augustine  thought,  who,  after  having  referred  the  latter 
to  the  two  sexes,  referred  the  two  others,  the  one  to  the  woman  and  the 
other  to  the  man.  The  disjunctive  negative,  neither  .  .  .  nor  (ovte  .  .  .  ovrt), 
would  be  necessary  in  that  case.  The  last  two  expressions  designate,  like 
the  first,  the  natural  birth ;  but  this,  while  introducing,  in  the  one  phrase, 
the  factor  of  the  will  governed  by  the  sensual  imagination  (the  mil  of  tlie 
flesh),  in  the  other,  that  of  a  will  more  independent  of  nature,  more 
personal  and  more  manlike,  the  will  of  man.  There  is  a  gradation  in 
dignity  from  one  of  these  terms  to  the  other.  But,  to  whatever  height 
the  transmission  of  natural  life  may  rise,  this  communication  of  life- 
power  cannot  pass  beyond  the  circle  traced  out  at  the  first  creation — that 
of  the  physi co-psychical  life.  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh,  even  in  the 
best  conditions,  is,  and  remains  flesh.  The  higher,  spiritual,  eternal  life 
is  the  immediate  gift  of  God.  To  obtain  it,  that  divine  begetting  is  needed 
by  which  God  communicates  His  own  nature.  The  limiting  phrase,  kit 
deov  {of  God),  contains,  in  itself  alone,  the  antithesis  to  the  three  preceding 
phrases.  By  its  very  conciseness  it  expresses  the  beauty  of  that  spiritual 
birth  which  is  altogether  free  from  material  elements,  from  natural  attrac- 
tion, from  human  will,  and  in  which  the  only  cooperating  forces  are  God 
acting  through  His  Spirit  on  the  one  side,  and  man's  faith  on  the  other. 

But  how  are  we  to  explain  the  virtue  of  this  faith  which  fits  the  man  to 
be  begotten  of  God  ?  Does  it  have  in  itself,  in  its  own  nature,  the  secret 
of  its  power  ?  No,  for  it  is  only  a  simple  receptivity,  a  la/ifiaveiv,  receive : 
its  virtue  comes  from  its  object.  The  apostle  had  already  intimated  this 
by  the  words :  "  who  believe  on  His  name ;  "  and  he  now  expressly 
declares  it : 

Ver.  14.  "And  the  Word  became  flesh  and  dwelt  among  us — and  we 
beheld  His  glory,  a  glory  as  of  the  only-begotten  Son  coming  from  the  presence 
of  the  Father— full  *  of  grace  and  truth.  The  connection  between  this  verse 
and  the  preceding,  which  is  involved  in  nai,  and,  is  expressed  in  the 
following  thought :  If  faith  can  make  of  a  man  born  of  the  flesh  a  child 
of  God,  it  is  because  it  has  for  its  object  the  Word  made  flesh.  The  coming 
of  Christ  upon  earth  in  the  flesh  had  been  already  mentioned  in  ver.  11, 
from  the  point  of  view  of  its  relation  to  Israel,  and  of  the  unbelief  by 
which  it  had  been  met.  John  proclaims  again  the  great  fact,  the  subject 
of  his  narrative,  from  the  point  of  view  of  all  mankind,  and  as  the  object 
of  the  faith  of  the  Church.  There  is,  therefore,  no  tautology  in  this  repeti- 
tion. It  even  reflects  very  faithfully  the  phases  of  the  development  of 
faith  in  the  heart  of  those  who  were  formerly  Jews,  like  John  and  the 
apostles.    They  first  witness  the  appearance  of  the  Messiah   in  Israel 

JD  and  some  Fathers  read:  ttAijptj  (agree-  cording  to  a  variant  n-Aijpovs??)  to  be  referred 
ing  with  6o£av),  and  Augustine:   pleni  (ac-       to  unigeniti. 


268  PROLOGUE. 

(to  His  own)  ver.  11,  and  they  see  Him  ignominiously  rejected.  But  far 
from  joining  in  this  rejection,  they  receive  Him  as  the  promised  Messiah, 
and  through  their  faith  in  Him  find  the  privileges  of  adoption  and  regen- 
eration (vv.  12,  13).  Then  sounding  in  all  its  depths  the  object  of  a  faith 
which  is  capable  of  effecting  such  wonders,  they  cry  out :  "  This  is  the 
Word  who  has  been  made  flesh !  "  The  idea  of  the  national  Messiah  was 
thus  gradually  transformed  in  them  into  that  of  the  Son  of  God,  the 
Saviour  of  mankind.  The  nai,  and,  is  not,  therefore,  here  a  simple  con- 
necting copula.  How,  indeed,  can  we  connect  with  one  another  by  an 
and  or  an  and  also  two  ideas  which  are  as  unlike  as  those  of  13b  and  14a : 
"  They  are  born  of  God,"  and  (and  also) :  "  the  Word  became  flesh."  We 
do  not  think  that  the  thought  of  the  evangelist  is  any  more  successfully 
apprehended  by  paraphrasing  this  ml,  as  Luthardt  does,  "  and  to  tell  the 
whole  truth,"  or,  as  Bruckner,,  "and  in  these  circumstances."  The  paraphrase 
of  Weiss-Meyer :  "  And  this  is  the  way  in  which  faith  in  Him  was  able  to 
take  form  and  produce  such  happy  fruits  ....,"  amounts  to  nearly  the 
same  thing  with  our  own  explanation,  which  was  already  that  of  Chry- 
sostom,  Grotius,  etc.  The  emphasis  is  not  on  the  subject:  the  Word;  this 
noun  is  repeated  (instead  of  the  simple  pronoun)  only  with  the  purpose 
of  better  emphasizing  the  contrast  between  the  subject  and  the  predicate 
became  flesh.  The  Word  to  which  everything  owes  its  existence,  which 
oreated  us  ourselves,  became  a  member  of  the  human  race.  The  word 
flesh  properly  denotes,  in  its  strict  sense,  the  soft  parts  of  the  body,  as 
opposed  either  to  the  hard  parts,  the  bones  ;  thus  when  it  is  said,  "  Flesh 
of  my  flesh,  bone  of  my  bones"  (Gen.  ii.  23), — or  to  the  blood  (vi.  54). 
From  this  more  restricted  sense,  a  broader  one  is  derived  :  the  entire  body, 
regarded  from  the  view-point  of  its  substance,  the  animated  matter ;  so 
1  Cor,  xv,  39.  Finally,  as  the  flesh  is  properly  the  seat  of  physical  sensi- 
bility, this  word,  by  metonomy,  often  designates  the  entire  human  being, 
in  so  far  as  he  is  governed  in  his  natural  state  by  sensibility  with  respect 
to  pleasure  and  pain.  "  For  also  they  are  but  flesh,"  is  said  of  men  before 
the  deluge,  Gen.  vi.  3.  Comp.  John  xvii.  11 ;  Ps.  lxv.  1 ;  Rom.  iii.  20:  all 
flesh,  no  flesh,  for :  every  man,  no  man.  Undoubtedly,  the  desire  of  enjoy- 
ment and  the  dread  of  suffering  are  not  in  themselves  criminal  instincts. 
They  are  often  the  precious  means  by  which  man  escapes  from  a  multi- 
tude of  losses  and  injuries  of  which  he  would  otherwise  not  be  conscious. 
Still  more :  without  this  double  natural  sensibility,  man  would  never  be 
able  to  offer  to  God  anything  but  "  sacrifices  which  cost  him  nothing." 
He  could  not  himself  become  "  a  living  sacrifice,  holy,  acceptable  to  God  " 
(Rom.  xii.  1),  and  thereby  fulfill  his  noblest  destiny,  that  of  glorifying  God 
by  the  sacrifice  of  himself.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  cannot  be  denied 
that  in  these  two  natural  propensities  lies  the  possibility  of  temptation 
and  sin.  Human  nature  in  this  critical  condition :  such  is  the  form  of 
existence  which  the  Word  has  consented  to  take  for  nimself.  The 
expression  became  flesh,  accordingly  signifies,  first  of  all,  that  the  Word 
left  the  immaterial  state  of  divine  being  to  assume  a  body,  and  to  confine 
Himself,  like  the  creature,  within  the  limits  of  time  and  space.    But  the 


chap.  I.  14.  2G9 

word  flesh  expresses  much  more  than  this.  Since  the  work  of  Zeller 
(Tlwol.  Jahrb.  1842),  the  Tubingen  school  makes  John  say  that  the  Logos 
borrowed  from  humanity  only  the  material  body,  while  He  Himself  filled, 
in  Jesus,  the  office  of  the  spirit  in  every  other  man  (the  old  theory  of 
Apollinaris).  But  John  does  not  dream  of  any  such  thing.  We  have 
just  proved  that  the  word  flesh  often  designates  the  entire  human  person 
(spirit,  soul  and  body,  1  Thess.  v.  23).  This  is  certainly  the  case  in  this 
passage.  The  expression :  "  the  Word  became  body,"  would  have  no 
meaning.  It  would  have  been  necessary  to  say :  took  a  body.  Jesus 
sometimes  speaks  in  our  Gospel  of  His  soul,  and  of  His  soul  as  troubled 
(xii.  27).  It  is  related  of  Him  that  He  groaned  or  that  He  was  troubled 
in  His  spirit  (xi.  33  ;  xiii.  21),  that  He  gave  up  His  spirit  (xix.  30) ;  all  this 
implies  that  the  Logos  does  not  play  the  part  of  the  spirit  in  the  person 
of  Jesus.  The  spirit  of  Jesus  is,  as  in  every  man,  one  of  the  elements  of 
the  human  nature,  like  the  soul  and  the  body.  It  follows  from  this  that 
the  flesh  denotes,  in  our  passage,  complete  human  nature.  Consequently, 
this  term  flesh  is  not  intended  to  describe  merely  the  visibility  or  corporeity 
of  Jesus  (de  Wette,  Reuss,  Baur),  or  even  the  poverty  and  weakness  of  His 
earthly  manifestation  (Olshausen,  Tholuck).  It  designates  the  reality  and 
■integrity  of  the  human  mode  of  existence  into  which  Jesus  entered.  In 
virtue  of  this  incarnation,  He  was  able  to  suffer,  to  enjoy,  to  be  tempted, 
to  struggle,  to  learn,  to  make  progress,  to  love,  to  pray,  exactly  like  us; 
comp.  Heb.  ii.  17.  The  phrase  avdpwrrog  eyivero,  became  man,  would  have 
expressed  nearly  the  same  idea ;  only  it  would  have  described  Jesus  as  a 
particular  personality,  as  a  definite  representative  of  the  human  type,  and 
it  might  have  been  imagined  that  this  man  had  reserved  for  Himself  an 
exceptional  position  in  the  race.  The  term  flesh,  which  denotes  only  the 
state,  the  mode  of  existence,  more  clearly  affirms  the  complete  homoge- 
neity between  His  condition  and  ours.  Moreover,  Jesus  does  not  hesitate 
to  apply  to  Himself  the  word  avdpunog,  man,  John  viii.40;  and  the  nanie 
by  which  in  preference  to  all  others  He  described  Himself,  was  Son  of 
man  (see  on  i.  52). 

The  word  which  fills  the  interval  between  the  subject,  the  Word,  and  the 
predicate,  flesh,  is  the  verb  tyevero,  became.  The  word  become,  when  it  has 
a  substantive  for  its  predicate,  implies  a  profound  transformation  in  the 
subject's  mode  of  being.  Thus  ii.  9 :  "  The  water  became  wine  "  (to  v6up 
olvov  yeyEvrinEvov).  When  a  person  is  in  question,  this  word  become,  with- 
out implicating  his  identity,  indicates  that  he  has  changed  his  condition; 
for  example,  in  the  expression  :  The  king  become  a  shepherd.  Baur  and 
Reuss  affirm  that,  in  the  evangelist's  thought,  the  Logos,  though  becom- 
ing flesh,  remained  in  possession  not  only  of  His  consciousness,  but  also 
of  His  attributes  as  Logos.  He  clothed  Himself,  indeed,  with  a  body, 
according  to  them,  but  as  if  with  a  temporary  covering.  "  This  incarna- 
tion was  for  Him  only  something  accessory  "  (Reuss,  ii.,  p.  45G).  Yet  this 
scholar  cannot  help  saying  (p.  451)  :  "  There  is  nothing  but  the  word  be- 
come which  positively  affirms  that,  in  coming,  He  changed  the  form  of 
His  existence."    Certainly !    And  we  affirm  nothing  more,  but  nothing 


270  PROLOGUE. 

less.  The  word  become  shows,  indeed,  that  this  change  reached  even  the 
foundation  of  the  existence  of  the  Logos.  This  natural  sense  of  the  word 
become  is  not  invalidated  by  the  expression  is  come  in  the  flesh,  1  John  iv. 
2,  in  which  Reuss  rinds  the  affirmation  of  the  preserving  of  His  original 
nature  with  all  its  attributes,  but  which  really  involves  only  the  continuity 
of  His  personality.  The  personal  subject  in  the  Logos  remained  the  same 
when  He  passed  from  the  divine  state  to  the  human  state,  but  with  the 
complete  surrender  of  all  the  divine  attributes,  the  possession  of  which 
would  have  been  incompatible  wfth  the  reality  of  the  human  mode  of 
existence.  And  if  He  ever  recovers  the  divine  state,  it  will  not  be  by 
renouncing  His  human  personality,  but  by  exalting  it  even  to  the  point 
where,  it  can  become  the  organ  of  the  divine  state.  This,  as  it  seems  to 
us,  is  the  true  Christological  conception,  as  it  appears  in  the  Scriptures 
generally,  and  in  our  passage  in  particular. 

The  content  of  John's  declaration,  therefore,  is  not :  Two  natures 
or  two  opposite  modes  of  being  co-existing  in  the  same  subject;  but  a 
single  subject  passing  from  one  mode  of  being  to  another,  in  order  to 
recover  the  first  by  perfectly  realizing  the  second.  The  teaching  of  John, 
as  thus  understood,  is  in  complete  harmony  with  that  of  Paul.  That 
apostle  says,  indeed,  Phil.  ii.  6-8:  "He  who  was  in  the  form  of  God  .  .  . 
emptied  (divested)  Himself,  having  taken  the  form  of  a  servant  and  having 
become  like  to  men ; "  and  2  Cor.  viii.  9 :  "  Though  He  was  rich,  He 
became  poor,  that  ye  through  His  poverty  might  be  rich."  These  passages 
express,  in  a  form  which  is  completely  independent  of  that  of  John,  a  con- 
ception which  is  identically  the  same :  The  incarnation  by  means  of  a 
divesting  {nkvuciq).  We  shall  see  that  the  whole  Gospel  history,  and 
especially  the  picture  of  Jesus  which  is  traced  by  our  evangelist,  accords 
perfectly,  notwithstanding  all  the  contrary  assertions  of  Reuss,  with  the 
thesis  of  the  Prologue  as  thus  understood. 

After  having  entered  the  human  life,  the  Word  took  up  His  abode  there 
and  appropriated  it  to  Himself  even  to  the  end ;  this  is  expressed  by  the 
following  clause.  The  word  cktjvovv,  literally,  to  dwell  in  a  tent,  contains, 
according  to  Meyer,  Reuss,  etc.,  an  allusion  to  a  technical  word  in  the 
religious  philosophy  of  the  later  Jews,  Shechinah  (the  dwelling-place),  which 
denoted  the  visible  forms  by  which  Jehovah  manifested  His  presence  in 
the  midst  of  His  people.  We  might  see  thus  in  this  word  oar/vow,  to  live 
in  a  tent,  especially  with  the  limiting  phrase  h  %/iiv,  among  us,  an  allusion 
to  the  Tabernacle  in  the  wilderness,  which  was,  as  it  were,  the  tent  of 
Jehovah,  Himself  a  pilgrim  among  His  pilgrim  people.  To  this  con- 
formity between  the  sort  of  habitation  which  Jehovah  had  and  that  of  His 
people  answers  the  complete  community  in  the  mode  of  existence  between 
the  incarnate  Word  and  men,  His  brethren.  Perhaps,  these  allusions  are 
somewhat  refined  and  John's  thought  is  merely  that  of  comparing  the 
flesh  of  Jesus  (His  humanity)  to  a  tent  like  ours  (2  Cor.  v.  1).  This  word 
ckt/vovv,  to  camp,  denotes,  in  any  case,  all  the  familiar  relations  which  He 
sustained  with  His  fellow-men  ;  varied  relations  like  those  which  a  pilgrim 
sustains  towards  the  other  members  of  the  caravan.    It  is  as  if  John  had 


chap.  i.  14.  271 

said :  "  We  ate  and  drank  at  the  same  table,  slept  under  the  same  roof, 
walked  and  journeyed  together ;  we  knew  Him  as  son,  brother,  friend, 
guest,  citizen.  Even  to  th  3  end,  He  remained  faithful  to  the  path  on  which 
He  entered  when  He  became  a  man."  This  expression,  therefore,  calls  to 
mind  all  the  condescension  of  that  divine  being,  who  thus  veiled  His 
majesty  in  order  to  share  in  the  existence  of  the  companions  of  His  journey. 
— The  limiting  phrase  kv  r/,ulv,  among  us,  does  not  refer  to  men  in  general, 
nor  even  to  the  Church  in  its  totality.  In  connection  with  the  word  okijvovv, 
to  live  in  a  tent,  and  with  the  following  phrase,  we  beheld,  it  can  only  desig- 
nate the  immediate  witnesses  of  the  earthly  existence  of  Jesus,  who 
sustained  towards  Him  the  familiar  relations  comprised  in  the  notion  of 
life  in  common.  The  expression  of  the  general  feeling  of  the  Church  will 
come  later,  vv.  16-18. 

According  as  this  spectacle  presents  itself  to  the  thought  of  the  evange- 
list, and  assumes,  in  the  words  among  us,  the  character  of  the  most 
personal  recollection,  it  becomes  to  him  the  object  of  delightful  contempla- 
tion. The  phrase  is  broken.  The  word  us,  of  the  limiting  phrase,  suddenly 
becomes  the  subject,  while  the  subject,  the  Word  and  His  glory,  passes 
into  the  position  of  the  grammatical  object :  "And  we  beheld  His  glory." 
How  easily  may  this  change  of  construction  be  understood  in  the  writing 
of  an  eye-witness !  We  observe  the  reverse  change  in  the  first  verses  of 
1  John :  "  That  which  we  have  heard,  that  which  we  beheld  of  the  Word 
of  life  .  .  .  ,  for  the  life  was  manifested  and  we  have  seen  it,  this  it  is  which  we 
declare  unto  you."  Here,  the  apostle  begins  with  the  impression  received 
— it  is  a  letter — to  pass  from  this  to  the  fact  itself.  But  in  the  Gospel,  where 
he  speaks  as  a  historian,  after  having  started  from  the  fact,  he  describes 
the  ineffable  joy  which  the  witnesses  experienced  in  this  sight.  The  word 
deacdai  (to  behold),  is  richer  than  6pav  (to  see,  to  discern) ;  it  is  the  restful 
seeing,  as  Luthardt  says,  with  an  idea  of  satisfaction,  while  to  6pdv  attaches 
rather  the  idea  of  knowledge.  Buur,  Keim,  Reuss,  apply  this  word  behold 
here  to  a  purely  spiritual  act,  the  inward  sight  of  Christ  which  is  granted 
to  every  believer ;  comp.  1  Ep.  in.  G :  "  He  that  sinneth  hath  not  seen  him ;" 
and  2  Cor.  iii.  18.  We  may  understand  the  design  of  this  interpretation. 
These  critics  refuse  to  recognize  in  the  evangelist  a  witness,  and  yet  they 
would  not  wish  to  make  him  an  impostor.  This  expedient,  therefore, 
alone  remains.  But  this  expedient  involves  inextricable  difficulty,  as  we 
have  shown  in  the  Introduction  (pp.  201-202).  How  could  there  be  a 
question  here  of  the  glorified  Christ,  as  an  object  of  the  spiritual  contem- 
plation of  believers  ?  Are  we  not  at  the  opening  of  the  narrative  of  the 
earthly  life  of  Christ,  at  the  moment  when  the  coming  of  the  Logos  in 
the  flesh  and  His  condescension  towards  the  companions  of  His  earthly 
career  have  just  been  pointed  out?  To  attribute  to  the  word  behold  in  such 
a  context  a  purely  spiritual  sense,  is  to  set  at  nought  the  evidence. 
Undoubtedly,  the  witnesses  had  more  than  the  sight  of  the  body.  This 
beholding  was  an  internal  perception.  But  the  first  was  the  means  of  the 
second. 
The  object  of  the  beholding  was  the  glory  of  the  Word.    The  glory  of 


272  PROLOGUE. 

God  is  the  beaming  forth  of  His  perfections  before  the  eyes  of  His 
creatures.  This  glory  is  really  unique;  every  glory  which  any  being 
whatsoever  possesses  is  only  the  participation  in  some  measure  of  the 
splendor  which  is  sent  forth  by  the  perfection  of  God  Himself.  The  glory 
which  the  witnesses  of  the  earthly  life  of  the  Logos  beheld  in  Him  could 
not  be  the  splendor  which  He  enjoyed  in  His  pre-existent  state.  For  this 
glory  Jesus  asks  again  in  xvii.  5 :  "  And  now,  Father,  glorify  thou  me 
with  thyself,  with  the  glory  which  I  had  with  thee  before  the  world  was." 
One  does  not  ask  again  for  what  one  still  possesses.  Reuss  claims  that  it 
is  only  "  the  most  arbitrary  harmonistic,"  which  can  ascribe  to  John  the 
idea  that  the  Logos  divested  Himself  of  the  divine  attributes  when  he 
became  incarnate  (Thiol,  jolmnn.,  p.  120).  But  as  for  this  harmonistic,  it 
is  John  himself  who  suggests  it  in  the  prayer  of  Jesus  which  we  have  just 
quoted,  and  this  is  in  full  harmony  with  Paul  (Phil  ii.  G  ff.).  What  must 
we  understand,  then,  by  that  glory  of  Jesus,  of  which  John  here  speaks, 
and  which  is  not  that  of  the  pre-existent  Logos?  In  Chap,  ii.,  ver.  11,  after 
the  miracle  of  Cana,  John  says :  "  And  he  manifested  his  glory."  We 
might  conclude  from  this  that,  as  Weiss  thinks,  the  earthly  glory  of  the 
Logos  consisted  in  the  works  of  omnipotence,  as  well  as  in  the  words  of 
omniscience,  which  the  Father  gave  Him  to  do  and  to  utter.  Neverthe- 
less, in  chap.  xvii.  10,  Jesus  says :  "  I  am  glorified  in  them,"  and  this 
expression  leads  us  to  a  more  spiritual  idea  of  the  glory  which  He  pos- 
sessed here  on  earth.  Even  in  our  verse,  the  words  :  full  of  grace  and  truth, 
describe  the  Word  and  give  us  a  much  more  moral  notion  of  His  glory 
than  the  explanation  of  Weiss  implies.  The  essential  character  of  this 
earthly  glory  of  the  Logos  was,  as  it  appears  to  me,  the  stamp  of  sonship 
impressed  upon  the  whole  human  life  of  Jesus,  the  intimate  communion 
with  the  Father  which  so  profoundly  distinguished  His  life  from  every 
other.  Jesus  puts  us  upon  the  right  path  when,  before  uttering  the 
words  :  "  I  am  glorified  in  them,"  He  says  (xvii.  10)  :  "  All  things  that  are 
mine  are  thine,  and  all  things  that  are  thine  are  mine."  Such  a  relation 
with  God  is  the  most  complete  glory  which  can  irradiate  the  face  of  a 
human  being.  It  comprehends,  of  course,  all  the  manifestations  of  such 
a  relation,  thus  works  of  power,  words  of  wisdom,  the  life  of  holiness  and 
charity,  all  of  divine  grandeur  and  beauty,  that  the  disciples  beheld  in 
Jesus.  This  explanation  agrees  with  that  of  John  himself  in  the  follow- 
ing words  :  "  A  glory  as  of  the  only-begotten  from  the  Father."  The  con- 
junction yf,  as,  does  not  certainly  express  here  a  comparison  between 
two  similar  things,  but,  as  is  often  the  case,  the  absolute  agreement 
between  the  fact  and  the  idea  :  a  glory  as  (must  be)  that  of  the  Son  com- 
ing from  the  presence  of  the  Father.  Weiss  urges  against  this  explanation 
the  absence  of  the  article  tov,  of  the,  before  the  words :  only-begotten  Son 
and  Father ;  and  further,  the  most  natural  sense  of  <I>c,  as,  which  is  that 
of  comparison.  He  translates  accordingly,  "  A  glory  like  to  that  of  an 
only-begotten  Son  coming  from  a  father,"  in  the  sense  that  every  only 
son  inherits  the  rank  and  fortune  of  his  father.  Thus  in  this  case  it  was 
£uen  that  God  had  conveyed  all  His  glory  to  Jesus.    But  this  explanation 


chap.  i.  14.  273 

would  imply  that  every  father,  who  has  an  only  son,  possesses  also  a  great 
fortune  to  convey  to  him,  which  is  by  no  means  true.  The  absence  of  the 
article,  which  leads  Weiss  to  an  explanation  which  is  so  forced,  is  much 
better  explained  by  the  fact  that  the  terms  only  Son  and  Father  are 
treated  here  as  proper  names,  or  at  least  as  substantives  designating"  single 
beings  of  their  kind  {Winer's  Grammar,  §  18).  Indeed,  the  Father  in 
question  is  the  Father,  in  the  absolute  sense,  the  one  from  whom  everyone 
who  is  called  father  in  heaven  and  on  earth  derives  his  paternal  character 
(Eph.  ii.  15) ;  and  this  only  Son  is  the  only  one,  not  merely  as  the  sole  son 
of  this  father,  but  inasmuch  as  He  is  the  absolute  model  and  prototype  of 
every  one  who  among  the  sons  of  men  bears  the  name  of  only  son.  With 
reference  to  tig,  as,  used  to  indicate  the  complete  agreement  of  the  fact 
with  the  idea,  comp.  the  quite  similar  d>c  in  Matt.  vii.  29;  1  Cor.  v.  3;  2 
Cor.  ii.  17 ;  Gal.  iii.  16,  etc.  The  glory  of  the  incarnate  Logos  was 
undoubtedly,  therefore,  a  humbler  glory  than  that  of  his  pre-existent  state, 
but  a  glory  which,  nevertheless,  marked  Him  as  united  to  God  by  the  bond 
of  an  unparalleled  filial  intimacy.  There  was  seen  in  Him,  as  never  in 
any  man,  the  assurance  of  being  loved  paternally  by  God,  of  the  power  of 
asking  everything  of  Him  with  the  certainty  of  being  heard,  and  at  the 
same  time  the  most  perfect  filial  fidelity  towards  Him.  This  unique 
glory  of  the  Word  made  flesh  the  apostle  describes,  when  he  charac- 
terizes the  entire  earthly  manifestation  of  the  Word  by  that  last  stroke  of 
his  pencil :  Full  of  grace  and  truth.  We  refer  these  words  to  the  principal 
subject  of  the  whole  sentence,  the  Word.  This  is  the  simple  and  correct 
construction  of  the  nominative  nlripTjq,  full ;  it  is  also  that  which  gives  the 
best  sense.  Undoubtedly,  this  adjective  might  be  made  a  nominative 
absolute,  with  Grotius,  Meyer,  Luthardt,  Weiss  and  others,  by  referring 
it  either  to  fio^av.  "  glory  full  of  grace  ..."  (hence  the  reading  ivlr/pyj  in 
D),  or  rather  to  avrov  of  him,  "  His  glory,  His  who  was  full  of  grace  ..." 
(hence  the  reading  pleni  in  Augustine).  But  these  explanations,  which  are 
grammatically  possible,  appear  to  me  to  misconceive  the  true  movement 
of  the  sentence.  Carried  away  by  the  charm  of  the  recollection,  the  evan- 
gelist interrupted  the  historical  description  of  the  relations  which  the 
Word  sustained  to  those  who  surrounded  Him  ;  he  now  takes  up  again  the 
picture  which  remained  unfinished, — not  that  a  parenthesis  must  be  sup- 
posed including  the  words  from  mi  to  narpdg;  there  is  no  deliberate  inter- 
ruption ;  the  ardor  of  feeling  caused  the  break  in  the  sentence,  which  is 
now  completed.  In  the  Old  Testament,  the  two  essential  features  of  the 
character  of  God  were  grace  and  truth  (Ex.  xxxiv.  6):  "  abundant  in  grace 
and  truth."  These  are  also  the  two  features  which,  in  John's  view,  dis- 
tinguished the  human  life  of  the  Word  made  flesh,  and  which  served  to 
reveal  to  Him  His  filial  relation  to  the  Father.  Grace:  the  divine  love 
investing  the  character  with  affableness  towards  friends,  with  condescen- 
sion towards  inferiors,  with  compassion  towards  the  wretched,  with  pardon 
towards  the  guilty ;  God  consenting  to  give  Himself.  And  as  it  is  from 
grace  that  life  flows  forth,  the  Word  became  anew  for  believers,  by  reason 
of  this  first  characteristic,  what  He  had  been  originally  for  the  world  (ver. 
18 


274  PROLOGUE. 

4),  the  source  of  life.  The  second  feature,  truth,  is  the  reality  of  things 
adequately  brought  to  light.  And,  as  the  essence  of  things  is  the  moral 
idea  which  presides  over  the  existence  of  each  one  of  them,  truth  is  the 
holy  and  good  thought  of  God  completely  unveiled ;  it  is  God  revealed. 
Through  this  attribute  the  incarnate  Word  also  became  anew  what  He 
originally  was,  the  light  of  men  (vv.  4,  5).  By  these  two  essential  attri- 
butes of  Jesus'  character,  therefore,  the  witnesses  of  His  life  were  able  to 
recognize  in  Him  the  only  Son  coming  from  the  presence  of  the  Father. 
Their  feeling  was  this :  This  being  is  God  given,  God  revealed  in  a  human 
existence. 

As  a  man  who  has  made  an"  important  discovery  recalls  with  satisfac- 
tion the  suggestions  which  caused  the  first  awakening  of  his  thought  and 
set  his  mind  on  its  way  forward,  so  from  this  experience,  which  he  had 
had,  the  apostle  transports  himself  to  the  decisive  moment  when  he  heard 
the  first  revelation,  of  the  fact  of  the  incarnation.  Not  understood 
at  the  beginning,  but  afterwards  made  clear.  For  it  is  to  this  divine  fact 
that  the  word  of  the  forerunner  which  he  is  about  to  cite  refers.  John 
detaches  this  testimony  from  the  historical  situation  in  which  it  was  de- 
clared, and  which  will  be  expressly  recalled  in  ver.  30;  and  he  makes  use 
of  it,  at  this  time,  simply  with  a  didactic  purpose,  confirming  by  its  means 
the  capital  fact  of  the  incarnation,  set  forth  in  ver.  14.  It  is  the  second 
testimony,  that  of  the  official  divine  herald,  following  after  that  of  the 
eye-witnesses. 

Ver.  15.  John  bears  ivitness  of  him,  and  cries,  saying : x  This  is  he  of  whom 
I  spoke  when  I  said,'1  He  who  comes  after  me  hath  preceded  me,  because  he  was 
before  me"  The  present,  bears  ivitness  is  ordinarily  explained  by  the  permar 
nent  value  of  this  testimony ;  but  perhaps  it  is  due  rather  to  the  fact  that 
the  author  transports  himself  in  a  life-like  way  backward  to  the  moment 
when  he  heard  this'  mysterious  saying  coming  from  such  lips  ;  he  seems 
to  himself  to  hear  it  still.  The  perfect  nenpaye  is  always  used  in  Greek  in 
the  sense  of  the  present :  he  cries ;  this  declaration  was  made  with  the 
solemnity  of  an  official  proclamation.  According  to  the  reading  of  B.  C. 
and  Origen,  we  must,  in  order  to  give  sense  to  these  words :  it  was  he  icho 
spake,  put  them  in  a  parenthesis,  as  Westcott  and  Hort  do,  and  thus  ascribe 
to  the  evangelist  the  most  inept  of  repetitions.  See  where  these  critics 
lead  us  by  the  critical  system  which  they  have  once  for  all  adopted  !  The 
reading  of  N  is  equally  inadmissible.  According  to  ver.  30,  the  forerun- 
ner uttered  this  saying  on  the  next  day  after  the  deputation  of  the  Sanhe- 
drim had  officially  presented  to  him  the  question  relating  to  his  mission. 
After  having  expressly  declined  the  honor  of  being  the  Messiah  in  the 
presence  of  these  delegates,  he  had  added  in  mysterious  words,  that  that 
personage  was  already  present  and  was  immediately  to  succeed  him,  al- 
though in  reality  He  had  been  already  present  before  him  (vv.  26,  27). 
The  next  day,  he  made  this  declaration  again  before  the  people,  but  this 

1  X  Db  omit  Aeyiov.  omits  these  words  and  adds  o?  after  e pxontvos 

2  B.  C.  Or.  (once)  read  o  eirrwi/  (he  who  spake)  {he  who  comcth  after  me  was  the  one  who  was, 
instead   of    ov    eimoy    (of  whom  1  spake).    N        etc.). 


chap.  i.  15.  275 

time  designating  Jesus  positively  as  the  one  of  whom  he  had  spoken  on 
the  preceding  day,  and  adding  an  explanation  with  reference  to  that  pre- 
vious existence  which  he  attributed  to  Him  as  compared  with  himself 
(ver.  30).  This  second  more  full  declaration  the  evangelist  quotes  in  vcr. 
15 ;  because  it  was  the  first  which  referred  personally  and  intelligibly  to 
Jesus, — Jesus  not  being  present  on  the  previous  day.  It  may  be  asked 
why  there  is  this  slight  difference  between  the  cited  declaration  and  that 
of  ver.  15,  that  there  John  the  Baptist  says  ovtoq  iari, "  this  is  he,"  while, 
in  ver.  15,  the  evangelist  makes  him  say :  ovrog  tjv,  "  this  was  he."  The 
first  form  seems  more  in  harmony  with  the  immediate  presence  of  the 
one  to  whom  the  testimony  refers :  "This  is  he  of  whom  I  was  saying 
yesterday  .  .  .  You  see  him  there !  "  This  form  perfectly  suits  the  origi- 
nal testimony.  The  form  :  This ivas,  might  have  been  also  suitable  in  the 
Baptist's  mouth.  It  only  called  up  the  fact  that  it  was  He  of  whom  he 
had  thought  on  the  preceding  day,  when  speaking  as  he  had  done.  But 
it  proceeds  rather  from  the  evangelist;  for  it  is  natural  from  the  stand- 
point more  remote  from  the  fact,  at  which  he  now  is. 

The  testimony  here  reproduced  by  the  apostle  has  a  paradoxical  cast  in 
harmony  with  the  original  character  of  John  the  Baptist :  "  He  who  fol- 
lows me  has  preceded  me."  There  was  something  in  the  apparent  con- 
tradiction of  these  two  verbs  to  excite  the  attention  and  stimulate  the 
mental  activity  of  those  to  whom  the  saying  was  addressed.  Many  inter- 
preters, as  if  making  a  point  of  depriving  this  saying  of  what  in  fact  gives 
it  its  point,  have  assigned  to  the  word  has  preceded  me  the  sense  of  has 
surpassed  me  (Chrysostom,  Thohtck,  Olshausen,  de  Wette,  Liicke,  Luthardt).  But 
what  is  there  surprising  in  the  fact  that  he  who  comes  afterward  should  be 
superior  to  the  one  who  goes  before  him  ?  Is  it  not  so  in  ordinary  life? 
Does  not  the  herald  precede  the  sovereign  ?  A  platitude,  therefore,  is 
ascribed  to  John  the  Baptist.  Hofmann  has  felt  this.  And  instead  of  re- 
ferring one  of  these  verbs  to  time  and  the  other  to  dignity,  he  applies  them 
both  to  dignity,  in  this  sense:  "  He  who  was  at  first  inferior  to  me  (who 
went  behind  me  as  my  disciple)  has  become  my  superior  (goes  before  me 
now  as  my  master)."  But  Jesus  was  never  in  the  position  of  a  disciple 
with  relation  to  John,  and  no  more  did  He  become  his  master.  Besides, 
the  words  fiei^uv  and  tXaoouv  would  have  presented  themselves  much  more 
naturally  for  the  expression  of  this  idea.  Let  us  remember  that  the  evan- 
gelist has  as  his  aim  to  prove  by  the  testimony  of  the  forerunner  the  dig- 
nity of  the  Logos  incarnate,  which  is  attributed  to  Jesus  ;  now  it  is  pre- 
cisely the  temporal  sense  which  is  adapted  to  this  aim,  and  if  one  of  the 
two  prepositions  refers  to  time,  the  other  must  refer  to  it  also :  for  the 
apparent  contradiction  of  the  two  terms  is  what  gives  this  saying  all  its 
meaning.  "  He  who  is  my  successor  preceded  me  "  (Luther,  Meyer,  Bdum- 
lein,  Weiss,  Keil,  etc.).  My  successor:  as  to  the  Messianic  work;  Jesus  ap- 
peared on  the  stage  after  John.  And  yet  He  ivas  before  Him.  How  so? 
By  His  presence  and  activity  in  the  whole  period  of  the  Old  Covenant. 
The  Christ  really  preceded  His  forerunner  in  the  world  ;  comp.  xii.  41 ; 
1  Cor.  x.  4,  and  the  passage  in  Malachi  (ui.  1),  where  John  the  Baptist 


276  PEOLOGUE. 

found  this  idea,  as  we  shall  see.  The  perfect  ykyovi  does  not  mean  existed, 
but  teas  there  (in  fact) ;  comp.  vi.  25. 

On  repeating  this  enigmatical  word  on  the  next  day,  John  added  to  it 
the  phrase  which  should  give  a  glimpse  of  the  solution  of  the  enigma : 
because  he  was  before  me,  or  more  literally,  "  my  first."  Here  also,  many 
refer  the  word  first  to  superiority  of  rank,  not  of  time,  {Chrysostom,  Beza, 
Calvin,  Hofmann,  Luthardt) ;  but  the  imperfect  was  is  opposed  to  this 
sense;  is  would  have  been  necessary.  Objection  is  made  to  the  tautology 
between  this  proposition  and  the  preceding  one,  if  both  refer  to  time. 
But  it  is  forgotten  that  there  is  a  difference  between  ykyove,  which  places 
us  on  the  ground  of  history :  was  there,  and  f/v,  was,  which  refers  to  the 
essence  of  the  Logos,  to  the  eternal  order  to  which  He  by  nature  belongs. 
He  did  not  pass  from  nothingness  into  being,  like  His  forerunner.  If  He 
preceded  the  latter  on  thev field  of  history,  it  was  because,  in  reality,  He 
belonged  to  an  order  of  things  superior  to  that  of  time.  Many  interpre- 
ters {Meyer,  Baumlein),  who  take  the  word  first  in  the  same  sense  as  our- 
selves, say  that  the  superlative  Ttpwrog  is  put  here  for  the  comparative  npo- 
repog,  anterior  to,  and  they  cite  as  an  example  xv.  18.  But  John  avoids  the 
comparative  because  it  would  refer  to  the  relation  of  two  persons,  who 
both  belonged  to  the  same  order  of  things,  and  consequently  might  be 
compared  with  each  other.  Now  it  is  not  so  in  this  case  ;  and  any  com- 
parison is  impossible.  Jesus  is  not  only  anterior  to  John  ;  He  is,  speak- 
ing absolutely,  first  with  relation  to  him  and  to  everything  that  is  in  time. 
Hence  the  expression  :  my  first.  And  such,  indeed,  is  also  the  meaning 
in  xv.  IS.  For  Jesus  was  .not  merely  persecuted  before  the  disciples,  as 
their  equal ;  He  it  is  who  in  them  is  the  real  object  of  the  persecution. 
This  last  clause  contains,  accordingly,  the  solution  of  the  apparent  con- 
tradiction presented  by  the  two  preceding  clauses.  It  was  possible  for 
Him  to  be  the  predecessor  of  His  forerunner,  since  He  appertains  to  the 
eternal  order. 

It  is  alleged  that  John  the  Baptist  cannot  have  uttered  such  a  saying, 
which  already  implies  knowledge  of  the  divinity  of  the  Messiah,  a  knowl- 
edge which  was  developed  only  afterwards  in  the  Church.  It  is  the 
evangelist,  then,  who  puts  it  into- his  mouth  {Strauss,  Weiss,  de  Wette),  or 
who,  at  least,  modifies  in  this  way  some  expression  which  he  had  heard 
from  his  mouth,  and  in  which  the  forerunner  proclaimed  the  superior 
dignity  of  Jesus  ( Weiss).  On  the  other  hand,  Liicke,  Meyer,  Bruckner  and 
others,  defend  the  historical  accuracy  of  this  saying,  And,  in  fact,  the  pre- 
existence  of  the  Messiah  already  forms  a  part  of  the  teaching  of  the  Old 
Testament;  comp.  Is.  ix.  5;  Micah  v.  1 ;  Dart.  vii.  13,  14.  Bertholdf,  in  his 
ChrLstolocfia  Judivorum,  p.  131,  has  demonstrated  the  presence  of  this  idea 
in  the  Rabbinical  writings.  It  is  found  in  the  book  of  Enoch  and  in  the 
fourth  book  of  Extras  (Schurer,  Lehrb.  der  N.  T.  Gesch.,  |  2d,  3).  Far 
from  having  borrowed  it  from  the  Christians,  the  Jewish  theology  turned 
away  from  it  rather,  in  its  struggle  with  Christianity  (Schurer,  ibid.).  If 
this  saying  were,  either  in  whole  or  in  part,  a  composition  of  the  evange- 
list, it  would  be  sufficient  for  him  to  place  it  in  his  Prologue ;  he  would 


chap.  i.  16.  277 

not  allow  himself  to  return  to  it  again  twice  in  the  course  of  the  following 
narrative,  in  order  to  point  out  the  historical  situation  in  which  John  had 
uttered  it,  fixing  exactly  the  place,  the  moment,  the  occasion  (vv.  26,  27, 
30),  and  marking  the  progress  in  its  terms  from  one  occasion  to  the  other. 
Besides,  the  original  and  enigmatical  form  in  which  it  is  presented  would 
be  enough  to  guarantee  its  authenticity.  In  this  respect,  it  offers  a  full 
analogy  to  the  indisputably  authentic  saying  of  the  forerunner  in  iii.  30. 
Let  us  not  forget  that  there  was  in  the  Old  Testament  a  passage  which, 
more  than  any  other,  contained,  as  it  were,  the  programme  of  John  the 
Baptist's  mission,  a  passage  which  he  must  have  read  again  and  again,  and 
which  was  the  text  of  the  declaration  which  occupies  our  attention.  It 
is  Mai.  iii.  1 :  "  Behold,  I  send  my  messenger  before  me,  and  he  prepares 
my  way."  If  the  Messiah  sends  His  messenger  before  Him,  that  is,  in 
order  Himself  soon  to  follow  him,  and  if  this  sending  consists  in  a  birth, 
it  is  clear  that  the  Messiah  must  necessarily  exist  before  His  successor. 
Simple  common  sense  forces  upon  us  this  conclusion,  which  John  the 
Baptist  well  knew  how  to  draw.  Finally,  even  independently  of  all  this, 
the  forerunner  had  received  special  revelations,  instructions  relative  to 
his  mission  :  "He  who  sent  me  to  baptize  with  water,  he  said  to  me;  "  thus 
he  expresses  himself,  alluding  to  a  direct  communication,  a  sort  of  the- 
ophany  which  had  been  granted  to  him  (i.  33).  It  is  impossible,  therefore, 
that,  with  the  vision  of  the  baptism  to  crown  this  special  prophetic  prepa- 
ration, he  should  not  have  had  his  eyes  open  to  understand  fully  the 
superior  dignity  of  the  One  whom  God  Himself  saluted  with  the  title  of 
His  well-beloved  Son. 

The  evangelist  has  made  us  hear  the  testimony  of  the  immediate  wit- 
nesses of  the  life  of  Christ  (ver.  14),  then,  that  of  the  herald  sent  to  pre- 
pare the  way  for  Him  (ver.  15) ;  it  only  remains  for  him  to  formulate  that 
which  comes  forth  from  the  experience  of  the  whole  Church. 

Ver.  16.  "  And1  of  his  fullness  we  have  all  received,  and  grace  for  grace." 
By  that  first  feature  of  the  divine  character,  grace,  the  Church  recognized 
in  Jesus  the  Word  made  flesh.  The  two  words,  x^P^  (grace),  and  ^r/pujia 
(fullness),  closely  connect  this  sentence  with  the  last  words  of  ver.  14. 
The  experience  which  the  Church  has  had,  has  come  to  set  the  seal  upon 
the  testimony  of  those  who  surrounded  Jesus  when  on  earth.  Since  llera- 
cleon  and  Origen,  many  (Luther,  Melanchthon,  etc.),  have  made  ver.  16  the 
continuation  of  John  the  Baptist's  discourse  (ver.  15).  And  it  is  possible 
that  from  this  explanation  the  reading  on  (because),  arose,  which  the  Alex- 
andrian authorities,  Origen,  and  some  other  documents  substitute  for  mi 
(and)  read  by  T.  R.  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse.  The  we  all  of  ver.  16, 
which  implies  the  existence  of  the  Church,  in  any  case  excludes  the  sup- 
position that  John  the  Baptist  is  still  speaking  in  ver.  16.  As  to  In  (because), 
if  it  were  the  true  reading,  it  would  be  necessary  to  make  it  relate  either 
to  the  testimony  of  the  apostles  in  ver.  14,  or  to  that  of  the  Baptist  in  ver. 

•  Instead  of  ««,  which  is  the  reading  of  in  ft  B  C  D  L  X,  It*"?.  Cop.  Some  Mnn  and 
T.  R.  with  AEFGHTAAn,  Syr™'. ;  Syr"*. ;  some  Fathers,  in  particular  Origen  (3  times). 
8yr.;  It«u«. ;  and  most  of  the  Mnn.,  <m  is  read 


278  PROLOGUE. 

15.  The  first  reference  is  not  possible,  since  it  would  force  us  to  make  ver. 
15  a  simple  parenthesis,  which  is  inadmissible ;  the  second  is  no  more  pos- 
sible; since  it  would  be  necessary  in  that  case  to  refer  this  because,  as 
Weiss  attempts  to  do,  not  to  the  contents  of  John's  testimony  (ver.  15),  but 
to  the  very  act  of  the  testimony,  and  thus  to  the  verb  lie  testifies:  "John 
testifies  thus  of  Jesus,  because  indeed  we  have  all  received  ..."  A  con- 
nection which  is,  grammatically  and  logically  speaking,  more  unnatural 
cannot  be  imagined.  Nothing  is  more  natural,  on  the  contrary,  than  the 
connection  through  /cat  (and)  in  the  T.  R. ;  this  and  expresses  very  simply 
the  addition  of  the  third  testimony,  that  of  the  Church,  to  the  two  others. 
This  reading,  therefore,  is  certainly  the  true  one ;  it  is  found  already  in  the 
oldest  Syriac  version,  the  Curetonian  Syriac.  The  other  is  due  to  Hera- 
cleon's  false  interpretation,  which  was  followed  by  Origen. 

The  word  7r/>)pwua  which  properly  denotes  that  which  serves  to  fill  an 
empty  space,  refers  to  the  inexhaustible  fullness  of  grace  and  truth  by 
which  the  person  of  the  Logos  is  filled  and  with  which  it  overflows.  This 
word  TTlrjpufia  is  used  here  in  the  most  simple  and  natural  way,  in  the 
same  sense  as  in  Rom.  xv.  29  (x-M/pu/ia  ev/.oyiag,  fullness  of  blessing),  and 
without  the  least  analogy  to  the  mythological  sense,  which  the  Gnostics 
of  the  second  century  gave  to  it  in  their  systems.  In  the  words  we  all 
are  included  all  the  believers  mentioned  in  ver.  12,  the  Church  already 
extended  through  every  country  of  the  East  and  the  West  at  the  time 
when  John  wrote  this  Prologue.  The  verb  :  we  have  received  is  left  without 
an  object.  The  question  at  first  is  not  of  such  or  such  a  gift  received, 
but  only  of  the  act  of  receiving.  "  We  have  all  drawn,  richly  drawn  from 
this  invisible  source."  The  witnesses  had  beheld  (ver.  14) ;  the  Church 
has  received.  In  the  following  words,  John  states  precisely  what  it  has 
received.  First,  grace — that  first  sign  by  which  it  had  recognized  in  Him 
the  divine  Logos;  then,  truth ;  this  second  sign  will  be  noticed  in  vv.  17, 
18.  The  nai,  and,  signifies  here :  "  and  this  is  the  way."  The  words 
"grace  for  grace  "  are  ordinarily  translated  "grace  upon  grace."  That 
would  simply  mean,  grace  added  to  previous  grace.  But,  with  this  sense, 
would  not  John  rather  have  used  the  preposition  inl  (Phil.  ii.  27)?  In 
the  following  verse,  grace  is  opposed  to  the  law.  It  must,  therefore,  be 
supposed  that  John  has  this  antithesis  already  present  to  his  mind,  and 
that  this  is  the  reason  why  he  seeks  to  bring  out  with  emphasis  in  ver.  16 
the  peculiar  character  of  the  grace.  Under  the  rule  of  the  law  each  new 
grace  must  be  obtained  at  the  cost  of  a  new  work.  In  the  economy  of 
grace  which  faith  in  the  Word  made  flesh  opens,  the  gift  already  received 
is  the  one  title  to  the  obtaining  of  a  new  gift:  "To  him  who  hath,  more 
is  given."  There  is  enthusiasm  in  this  paradoxical  formula  which  exalts 
the  system  of  grace  by  setting  it  in  such  complete  opposition  to  that  of 
the  law.  No  one  defends  any  longer,  at  the  present  day,  the  explanation 
of  the  ancient  Greek  interpreters,  who  thought  they  saw  here  the  supply- 
ing the  place  of  the  gift  of  the.  Old  Covenant  by  the  superior  gift  of  the 
New  Covenant.  The  following  verse,  where  grace,  as  such,  is  opposed  to 
the  law,  would  be  sufficient  to  exclude  such  an  interpretation.    That  of 


chap.  i.  17.  279 

Octlov,  who  imagined  he  could  see  here  the  grace  of  salvation  replacing  the 
happy  state  which  man  possessed  before  the  fall,  is  still  more  unfortunate. 

Ver.  16  describes  grace.;  ver.  18  will  describe  truth;  ver.  17  which  con- 
nects them,  unites  grace  and  truth  : 

Ver.  17.  "  For  the  law  was  given  by  Moses  ;  grace  and  truth  came  by  Jesus 
Christ."  John,  who  had  reached  the  light  of  the  new  revelation  through 
the  preparatory  system  of  the  old,  could  not  fail  to  point  out  in  this  Pro- 
logue, at  least  summarily,  the  relation  between  the  two ;  and  he  does  it 
naturally  in  this  place,  where  the  mention  of  the  two  divine  gifts  obtained 
through  Jesus  Christ  summons  him  to  a  comparison  with  those  which 
the  ancient  people  of  God  had  received,  especially  with  the  law.  The  for 
refers  to  the  idea  of  grace,  which  has  been  so  forcibly  expressed  in  ver. 
16:  "grace  upon  grace;  for  the  legal  system  has  given  place  henceforth 
to  that  of  free  grace  which  is,  at  the  same  time,  that  of  truth."  We  meet 
again,  in  this  verse,  the  parallel  construction  peculiar  to  the  Hebrew ;  a 
Greek  writer  would  not  have  failed  to  mark  the  antithesis  between  the 
two  clauses  of  this  verse  by  the  particles  fiiv  and  Si.  The  office  of  the 
law  is  to  command  and  to  demand ;  the  peculiarity  of  grace,  the  essence 
of  the  Gospel,  is  to  offer  and  to  give.  The  law  connects  salvation  with  a 
work  which  it  exacts ;  Christ  gives  gratuitously  a  salvation  which  is  to 
become  the  cause  of  works.  Now  this  whole  manifestation  of  grace  fully 
reveals  at  last  the  true  character  of  God,  which  remained  veiled  in  the 
law,  and  consequently  it  reveals  truth  which  is  the  perfect  knowledge  of 
God.  Bengel  explains  the  opposition  between  the  law  and  the  two  fol- 
lowing terms  by  this  ingenious  formula :  lex  iram  param  el  umbram  habens  ; 
but  perhaps  this  is  the  mark  of  Paul  rather  than  of  John.  Weiss  makes 
grace  consist  in  the  revelation  of  truth ;  that  is  to  say,  of  God  as  love. 
Keil,  in  the  opposite  way,  makes  the  truth  of  God  consist  in  the  revela- 
tion of  His  grace,  which  is  more  true.  But  John  seems  to  me  rather  to 
place  these  two  gifts  in  juxtaposition  and  to  regard  them  as  distinct  from 
each  other ;  grace  is  God  possessed ;  truth  is  God  known.  These  two 
gifts  are  joined  together,  but  they  are  distinct.  So  John,  after  having 
developed  the  first  in  ver.  16,  sets  forth  the  second  in  ver.  18. 

The  term  was  given,  edodr;,  recalls  the  positive  and  outward  institution  of 
the  law,  its  official  promulgation.  The  expression  came,  literally  became, 
suits  better  the  historical  manifestation  of  grace  and  truth  in  the  person 
and  in  the  ministry  of  Jesus  Christ.  Moses  may  disappear ;  the  law  given 
by  him  remains.  But  take  away  Jesus  Cbrist,  and  the  grace  and  truth 
manifested  in  Him  disappear.  "  John."  says  Bengel  on  this  point,  "  chose 
his  expressions  with  the  strictness  of  a  philosopher."  Let  us  rather  say, 
with  the  emphatic  precision  which  is  the  characteristic  of  inspiration. 

It  is  at  this  point  of  the  Prologue  that  the  apostle  introduces,  for  the 
first  time,  the  name  so  long  expected,  Jesus  Christ.  He  descends  gradually 
from  the  divine  to  the  human  :  the  Logos  (ver.  1),  the  only-begotten  Son 
(ver.  14),  finally,  Jesus  Christ,  in  whom  the  heavenly  world  fully  assumes 
for  us  life  and  reality.  The  apostle  now  passes  to  the  second  character- 
istic of  the  divine  glory  of  Jesus  Christ :  truth,  ver.  18. 


280  PROLOGUE. 

Ver.  18.  "  No  one  has  ever  seen  God  ;  the  only-begotten  Son,1  who  is  in  the 
bosom  of  the  Father,  he  has  revealed  him  to  us." — The  absence  of  a  particle 
between  vv.  17  and  18  is  the  proof  of  a  very  intimate  relation  of  thought 
or  feeling  between  the  two.  The  second  becomes  thus,  as  it  were,  an 
energetic  reaffirmation  of  the  preceding.  And  in  fact,  what  is  this  truth 
born  for  the  earth  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ,  according  to  ver.  17,  if  it 
is  not  the  perfect  revelation  of  God  described  in  ver.  18  ? — The  true  knowl- 
edge of  God  is  not  the  result  of  philosophical  investigation ;  our  reason 
can  seize  only  some  isolated  rays  of  the  divine  revelation  shed. abroad  in 
nature  and  in  conscience.  .  It  does  not  succeed  in  making  of  them  a 
whole,  because  it  cannot  ascend  to  the  living  focus  from  which  they  ema- 
nate. The  theocratic  revelations  themselves,  which  were  granted  to  the 
saints  of  the  Old  Covenant,  contained  only  an  approximate  manifestation 
of  the  divine  being,  as  the  Lord  caused  Moses  to  understand,  at  the  very 
moment  when  He  was  about  to  make  him  behold  something  of  His  glory : 
"  Thou  shalt  see  my  back ;  but  my  face  shall  not  be  seen  "  (Ex.  xxxiii. 
23).  This  central  and  living  knowledge  of  God  which  is  the  only  true 
knowledge,  and  which  has  as  its  symbol  sight,  was  not  possessed  by  any 
man,  either  within  or  outside  of  the  theocracy,  not  even  by  Moses.  The 
word  God  is  placed  at  the  beginning,  although  it  is  the  object,  because  it 
is  the  principal  idea.  One  can  know  everything  else,  not  God !  The  per- 
fect iupane,  has  seen,  denotes  a  result,  rather  than  an  act,  which  would  be 
indicated  by  the  aorist :  "  No  one  is  in  possession  of  the  sight  of  God,  and 
consequently  no  one  can  speak  of  Him  de  visu."  The  full  truth  does  not 
exist  on  earth  before  or  outside  of  Jesus  Christ ;  it  truly  came  through 
Him.  The  Alexandrian  reading  God  only-begotten,  /uovoyevTjr  0e6c,  or,  ac- 
cording to  a,  the  (6)  only-begotten  God,  long  since  abandoned,  has  found  in 
Hort 2  a  learned  and  sagacious  defender,  who  has  gained  the  assent  of  two 
such  scholars  as  Harnack3  and  Weiss*  The  received  reading  has  been 
defended,  with  at  least  equal  erudition  and  skill,  by  the  American  critic, 
Ezra  Abbot,  in  an  article  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  Oct.,  1S61,  and  in  a  more 
recent  essay  in  the  Unitarian  Review,  1875.  The  result  of  these  studies 
with  reference  to  the  external  testimonies,  is :  1.  That  the  two  readings 
must  have  already  co-existed  in  the  second  century.  It  is  probable  that 
both  of  the  two  are  found  already  in  Irenxus.  The  received  reading  was 
read  in  the  Itala  and  by  Tertullian ;  the  other,  that  of  the  Alexandrian 
authorities,  by  Clement  of  Alex. ; 5  2.  That  the  latter  is  found  only  in  the 

1  T.  R.  reads  o  povoyevris  uto?  {the  only-be-  bridge,  1875. 

gotten  Son)  with  24  Mjj.,  from  the  fifth  to  the  8  Schiircr's  Literatur-Zeitung,  1876,  No.  21. 

tenth   cent.,  AEFG...XTAA,  etc.,  *  Sixth  ed.  of  Meyer's  Commentary. 

almost  all  the  Mnn.  It.  Syr1""'. ;  Syr*>"°. ;  Iren.  B  It  has  been  wrongly  believed  that  among 

(twice),  Orig.  (once),  Tert.,  Eus.  (six  times),  the  witnesses  for  the  latter  reading,  the  Val- 

Athan.    (four    times),   the   emperor    Julian  entinian  Ptolemy  could  be  ranked,  in  accord- 

(twice)  Chrys.,   Theod.,   etc.      The   reading  ance  with    a   fragment   from    this    Gnostic 

liovoyevris  Seo?  (X  o  /noi/oy.  9.)  (Ood  only-begot-  quoted  by  Irenasus  (i.  8,  5).     It  does  not  fol- 

ten)  is  found  in  S  B  C  L  33  Syr*=h.  Ir.  (once),  low  from  this  quotation  that  Ptolemy  read  in 

Clem,  (twice),  Orig.   (twice),   Epiph.    (three  his  copy  6e6t  instead  of  vio?,  nor  that  the 

times).— D  has  a  vacancy  here.  quotation  refers  to  John  i.  18.    (See  Keil,  p. 

1  Two  dissertations  on  novoyeviis  fltot,  Cam-  101.) 


chap.  i.  17.  281 

Egyptian  documents  (Fathers,  versions  and  manuscripts),  and  that  the 
documents  of  all  other  countries  present  the  received  reading;  thus  for 
the  West,  the  Itala,  Tertullian  and  all  the  Latin  Fathers  without  exception, 
— the  only  exception  which  has  been  cited,  that  of  Hilary,  is  only  appar- 
ent, as  Abbot  proves : — in  Syria  and  Palestine,  the  ancient  Syriac  transla- 
tion of  Cureton,  Euscbius,  Chrysostom,  Theodoret,  etc. ;  and,  what  is  more 
surprising,  in  Egypt  Athanasius  himself,  the  most  inflexible  defender  of 
the  divinity  of  Christ.  Does  it  not  seem  to  follow  from  this,  that  the 
Alexandrian  reading  is  due  to  a  purely  local  influence,  which  goes  back 
even  to  the  second  century  ?  As  to  internal  reasons,  as  favoring  the  Alex- 
andrian reading,  stress  may  be  laid  upon  its  unique  and  wholly  strange 
character;  for  it  is  said  to  be  more  improbable  that  it  should  be  replaced 
by  the  received  reading,  which  has  a  more  simple  and  common  character, 
than  that  the  contrary  could  have  taken  place.  But  it  may  also  be  asked 
whether  a  reading  which  does  not  find  its  counterpart  in  any  writing  of 
the  New  Testament,  and  in  any  passage  of  John  himself,  does  not  become 
by  reason  of  this  fact  very  suspicious.  To  account  for  its  rejection  it  is 
enough  that  an  explanation  be  given  as  to  how  it  may  have  originated 
and  been  introduced,  and  Abbot  does  this  by  reminding  us  how  early 
readings  like  the  following  were  originated  :  tlie  Logos-God,  which  is  found 
in  the  second  century  in  Melito  and  Clement  of  Alexandria,  and  the 
epithet  deoroKog,  mother  of  God,  given  to  Mary.  Hence,  readings  like  these : 
the  body  of  God,  instead  of  the  body  of  Jesus,  John  xix.  40,  in  A ;  or  all  were 
waiting  for  God,  instead  of  all  were  waiting  for  Him  (Jesus),  Luke  viii.  40,  in 
;  or  the  Church  of  God  which  He  purchased  with  His  own  blood,  instead  of 
the  Church  of  the  Lord,  etc.  (Acts  xx.  28),  in  n  and  B.  It  is  curious  that  it 
is  precisely  these  same  two  MSS.,  which  especially  support  the  reading 
God,  instead  of  Son,  in  our  passage.  It  would  be  difficult,  on  the  other 
hand,  to  explain  the  dogmatic  reason  which  could  have  substituted  here 
the  word  Son  for  God.  The  Arians  themselves,  as  Abbot  has  well  shown", 
had  no  interest  in  this  change ;  for  they  were  able  to  make  use  of  the 
Alexandrian  reading  to  prove  that  the  word  God  could  be  taken  in  a 
weakened  sense,  and  designate  a  divine  being  of  second  rank,  inferior  to 
the  Father;  it  was  for  them  the  best  means  of  getting  rid  of  the  word  God 
applied  to  the  Word  in  ver.  1.  So  Athanasius  himself  does  not  hesitate 
to  use  the  received  reading ;  as  for  ourselves,  we  cannot  hesitate.  The 
absence  of  any  parallel  to  the  Alexandrian  reading  and  its  very  pro- 
nounced doctrinal  savor  seem  to  us,  independently  of  external  criticism, 
sufficient  reasons  for  rejecting  it.  It  is  true  that  Hort  and  Weiss  urge 
against  the  received  reading  the  article  6,  the,  before  the  title  only-begotten 
Son,  for  the  reason  that  Jesus,  not  having  been  yet  called  by  this  name 
in  the  Prologue,  could  not  be  thus  designated  with  the  definite  article. 
This  objection  falls  to  the  ground  through  the  true  explanation  of 
ver.  14,  where  the  words  only-begotten  Son  cannot  denote  an  only-begotten 
Son  in  general,  as  Weiss  will  have  it,  and  can  only  be  applied  to  the 
Word  made  flesh.  Moreover,  even  without  this  preceding  expression,  no 
reader,  when  reading  the  words  :  "  The  only-begotten  Son  has  revealed 


282  PROLOGUE. 

him  to  us"  could  for  an  instant  doubt  concerning  whom  John  meant 
to  speak. 

The  character  of  complete  revelator  ascribed  here  to  Jesus  is  explained 
by  His  intimate  and  personal  relation  with  God  Himself,  such  as  is 
described  in  the  following  words  :  who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father.  The 
participle  6  o>v,  who  is,  is  connected  in  a  very  close  logical  relation  with 
the  following  verb  :  He  has  revealed.  As  Baumlein  says,  it  is  equivalent  to 
on  uv,  inasmuch  as  He  is;  thereupon  rests  His  competency  to  reveal. — 
The  figure  which  John  employs  might  be  derived  from  the  position  of 
two  nearest  guests  at  a  banquet  (xiii.  23) ;  but  it  seems  rather  to  be 
borrowed  from  the  position  of  a  son  seated  on  his  father's  knees  and 
resting  on  his  bosom.  It  is  the  emblem  of  a  complete  opening  of  the 
heart;  he  who  occupies  this  place  in  relation  to  God  must  know  the  most 
secret  thoughts  of  the  Father  and  His  inmost  will.  The  word  noliroq, 
bosom,  would  by  itself  prove  that  the  mystery  of  the  Son's  existence  is  a 
matter,  not  of  metaphysics,  but  of  love,  comp.  xvii.  24:  "Thou  didst  love 
me  before  the  foundation  of  the  world."  The  omission  of  the  words  6  Lv 
in  N  is  a  negligence  condemned  by  all  the  other  MSS.  Must  we,  with 
Hofmann,  Luthardt  and  Weiss,  refer  the  words :  "  who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the 
Father  "  to  the  present  glorified  condition  of  Jesus  ?  But  the  heavenly 
state  which  Jesus  now  enjoys  cannot  explain  how  He  was  able  to  reveal 
the  Father  perfectly  while  He  was  on  the  earth.  We  must  then,  in  that 
case,  refer  the  revealing  act  of  Jesus  to  the  sending  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  which  is  implied  by  nothing  in  the  text.  Or  is  John 
thinking  especially  of  the  divine  condition  of  the  Logos  before  His 
coming  to  the  earth?  But  that  would  be  to  say,  that  the  knowledge  of 
God  which  Jesus  communicated  to  men  was  drawn  from  the  recollections 
of  His  anterior  existence.  We  cannot  admit  this.  In  fact,  everything 
which  Jesus  revealed  on  earth  concerning  God  passed  through  His  human 
consciousness  (see  on  iii.  13,  vi.  46).  I  agree,  therefore,  in  opinion  rather 
with  Lilcke,  that  this  present  participle  6  uv,  who  is,  refers  to  the  perma- 
nent relation  of  the  Son  to  the  Father  through  all  the  stages  of  His 
divine,  human  and  divine-human  existence.  He  ever  presses  anew  with 
an  equal  intimacy  into  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  who  reveals  Himself  to 
Him  in  a  manner  suitable  to  His  position  and  His  work  at  every  moment. 
The  form  elg  k6Xitov,  instead  of  h  k62,k(j  (the  prep,  of  motion,  instead  of 
that  of  rest),  expresses  precisely  this  active  and  living  relation.  The 
bosom-of  the  Father  is  not  a  place,  but  a  life ;  one  is  there  only  in  virtue 
of  a  continual  moral  act.  If  John  substitutes  ei?  here  for  np6g  of  ver.  1, 
this  arises  simply  from  the  difference  between  the  object  koIizoi;,  the  bosom, 
which  denotes  a  thing,  and  the  object  6e6v,  God,  which  designated  a 
person.  The  word  tov  narp6g,  of  the  Father,  is  not  merely  a  paraphrase 
of  the  name  of  God  ;  this  term  is  chosen  in  order  to  make  the  essential 
contents  of  the  revelation  brought  by  the  Son  understood.  He  manifested 
God  as  Father,  and  for  this  He  did  not  need  to  give  speculative  teaching; 
it  was  enough  for  Him  to  show  Himself  as  Son.  To  show  in  Himself  the 
Son,  was  the  simplest  means  of  showing  in  God  the  Father.    Thus,  by  His 


GENERAL   CONSIDERATIONS.  283 

filial  relation  with  God,  Jesus  has  initiated  earth  into  the  most  profound 
secret  of  heaven,  a  secret  which  the  angels  themselves  perchance  did  not 
yet  sound  completely.  Outside  of  this  revelation  of  the  divine  character, 
every  idea  which  man  forms  of  God  is  incomplete  or  imaginary — in  a 
certain  measure,  an  idol,  as  John  says  (1  Ep.  v.  20).  The  pronoun  laeivog, 
he,  has  here,  as  ordinarily  in  John,  a  pregnant  and  even  exclusive  sense: 
"  he  and  he  alone ! "  It  is  impossible  to  explain  the  use  of  this  pronoun, 
as  Weiss  would  do,  by  the  contrast  with  a  nearer  subject,  which  would  be 
the  Father  Himself.  The  employment  of  the  word  k^yeladai  to  explain,  to 
make  knoivn,  is  often  explained  by  the  technical  use  of  it  which  was  made 
by  the  Greeks,  with  whom  it  denoted  the  explanation  of  divine  things  by 
men  charged  with  this  office,  the  k^yy-ai.  The  simplicity  of  John's  style 
hardly  harmonizes  with  this  comparison,  which,  besides,  is  not  necessary 
in  order  to  the  explanation  of  the  word.  The  apostle  uses  it  absolutely, 
without  giving  it  any  complement.  It  is  to  the  act,  rather  than  its  object, 
that  he  desires  to  draw  attention,  as  in  the  first  clause  of  ver.  16  (we  have 
received)  :  "  He  has  declared ;  really  declared !  "  Every  one  understands 
what  is  the  object  of  this  teaching :  God  first,  then  in  Him  all  the  rest.  To 
reveal  God,  is  to  unveil  everything. 

With  this  18th  verse  we  evidently  come  back  to  the  starting-point  of  the 
Prologue,  to  the  idea  of  ver.  1 .  Through  faith  in  Christ  as  only-begotten 
Son,  the  believer  finds  again  access  to  that  eternal  Word  from  whom  sin 
(the  darkness,  ver.  5)  had  held  him  apart.  He  obtains  anew,  in  the  form  of 
grace  and  truth  (vv.  16-18),  those  treasures  of  life  and  light,  which  the 
Word  has  spread  abroad  in  the  world  (ver.  4).  Sin's  work  is  vanquished  ; 
the  communion  with  heaven  is  re-established.  God  is  possessed,  is  known ; 
the  destiny  of  man  begins  again  to  be  realized.  The  infinite  dwells  in  the 
finite  and  acts  through  it ;  the  abyss  is  filled  up. 

At  the  same  time,  these  last  words  of  the  Prologue  form,  as  Keil  says, 
the  transition  to  the  narrative  which  is  about  to  begin.  How  did  Jesus 
Christ  reveal  the  Father  ?  This  is  what  the  story  to  which  the  apostle 
passes  from  ver.  19  onward  is  to  relate. 


GENERAL  CONSIDERATIONS  ON  THE  PROLOGUE. 
I.  The  Plan. 

Three  thoughts  sum  up  this  remarkable  passage  and  determine  its  pro- 
gress :  The  Logos  (vv.  1-4) ;  the  Logos  unrecognized  (vv.  5-11) ;  the  Logos 
received  (vv.  12-18).  Between  the  first  and  second  subjects  ver.  5  forms 
the  transition,  in  the  same  manner  as  vv.  12,  13  form  that  between  the 
second  and  third.  Finally,  the  last  verses  of  the  Prologue  bring  back  the 
mind  of  the  reader  to  the  first  words  of  the  passage. 

This  plan  seems  to  us  the  only  one  which  is  harmony  with  the  apostle's 
thought.  We  shall  convince  ourselves  of  this  by  recognizing,  in  the 
sequel  of  this  study,  the  fact  that  the  entire  narrative  is  founded  upon 


284  PROLOGUE. 

the  three  factors  which  have  been  indicated  and  that  its  phases  are  deter- 
mined by  the  appearance,  and  the  successive  preponderance  of  these  three 
essential  elements  of  the  history. 

II.  The  Intention  of  the  Prologue. 

There  are  three  very  different  ways  of  viewing  this  subject. 

I.  The  Tubingen  School  think  that  the  author  proposed  to  himself  to 
acclimate  in  the  Church  the  doctrine  of  the  Logos.  Finding  that  specu- 
lative idea  in  the  systems  of  his  time,  he  wished  to  build  the  bridge 
between  the  Church  and  the  reigning  philosophy.  And  as,  in  his  whole 
narrative,  he  had  no  other  aim  except  to  realize  this  design  by  illustrating 
this  dominant  idea  of  the  Logos,  by  means  of  certain  acts  and  discourses 
more  fictitious  than  real,  he  did  not  hesitate  to  inscribe  at  the  beginning 
of  his  book  the  great  thought  which  forms  its  synthesis — namely,  that  of 
an  eternal  being  intermediate  between  the  infinite  God  and  the  finite 
world. 

If  it  is  so,  it  must  be  acknowledged  that  the  theorem  of  the  Logos  is 
the  end  of  the  work,  and  that  the  person  of  Jesus  is  nothing  more  than 
the  means.  Is  this,  indeed,  the  meaning  of  this  Prologue?  Who  can 
think,  in  comparing  ver.  1  and  ver.  14,  that  the  second  of  these  verses  is 
there  for  the  sake  of  the  first,  and  not  the  reverse  ?  No ;  the  author  does 
not  wish  to  take  us  on  a  metaphysical  walk  in  the  depths  of  Divinity,  in 
order  to  discover  there  the  being  called  Logos ;  he  wishes  to  make  us  feel 
all  the  grandeur  and  all  the  value  of  the  person  and  work  of  Jesus  Christ, 
by  showing  us  in  this  historical  personage  the  manifestation  of  the  divine 
Logos.  It  is  not  the  fact  of  the  incarnation  (ver.  14)  which  is  at  the  ser- 
vice of  the  thesis  of  the  Logos  (ver.  1)  ;  it  is  this  thesis  which  prepares  the 
way  for  the  account  of  this  capital  fact  of  human  history.  By  nothing  is 
the  opposition  between  the  speculative  intention  which  Baur  ascribes  to 
the  Prologue  (as  to  the  whole  Gospel)  and  the  real  aim  of  this  passage, 
better  indicated,  than  by  the  explanation  which  that  scholar  is  obliged  to 
give  of  ver.  14.  To  that  verse,  which  is  the  centre  of  the  whole  passage, 
Baur  gives  an  altogether  subordinate  place.  John  does  not  mean  that 
the  Logos  becomes  incarnate,  but  simply  that  He  is  made  visible  by  a  kind 
of  theophany.  This  fact,  according  to  Baur,  has  no  value  for  the  accom- 
plishing of  salvation ;  it  serves  only  to  make  us  perceive  more  clearly  all 
its  sweetness.  This  explanation  is  sufficient  to  show  the  contradiction 
between  the  thought  of  the  Tubingen  professor  and  that  of  the  evan- 
gelist. 

II.  Reuss  avoids  such  an  exaggeration ;  he  understands  that  the  histor- 
ical person  of  Jesus  is  the  end  and  that  the  theory  of  the  Logos  can,  in 
any  case,  be  only  a  means.  The  author,  in  possession  of  the  Gospel  faith, 
seeks  to  give  a  rational  account  to  himself  of  his  new  belief,  and  for  this 
purpose  he  undertakes  to  draw,  outside  of  the  Gospel,  from  the  contem- 
porary philosophy  an  idea  capable  of  becoming  for  him  the  key  of  Jesus' 
history,  and  of  raising  his  faith  and  that  of  his  readers  to  the  full  height 


GENERAL  CONSIDERATIONS.  285 

of  religious  speculation.  Our  Prologue  is  the  initiation  of  the  Church  into 
the  true  Gnosis.  This  is  also  the  result  of  Liiebe'a  study.  To  explain  the 
Prologue  thus,  whether  one  wills  it  or  not,  is  to  give  up  the  authenticity 
of  the  entire  work.  -For  it  is  impossible  to  ascribe  to  an  apostle  of  Jesus 
such  an  amalgam  of  contemporary  metaphysics  with  the  conception  of 
the  person  of  his  Master.  So  the  author  of  this  explanation  has  ended, 
after  much  hesitation,  by  placing  himself  in  the  number  of  the  adversa- 
ries of  the  authenticity.  By  a  fatality  he  was  obliged  to  come  to  this 
point.  There  was,  indeed,  for  the  Apostle  John,  if  he  was  really  desirous 
to  deposit  in  a  written  work  the  theory  of  the  Logos,  which  had  thrown  a 
clear  light  for  him  upon  his  own  faith,  a  simple  means  of  establishing  for 
the  Church  this  new  view.  It  was  that  of  setting  it  before  the  Church  in 
an  epistle ;  there  was  no  need  of  using  for  this  purpose  the  means — very 
equivocal  in  a  moral  point  of  view — of  a  Gospel  narrative. 

lleuss  regards  the  procedure  which  he  attributes  to  the  author  as  uncon- 
scious on  his  part  and,  consequently,  as  innocent.  But  the  fact  that  the 
author  all  along  avoids  putting  the  word  Logos  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus, 
clearly  proves  that  he  acted  with  reflection,  and  that  he  had  the  conscious- 
ness of  not  having  this  name  from  the  lips  of  Him  to  whom  he  applied 
it.  As  to  the  innocence  of  this  matter,  history  has  passed  judgment,  and 
its  judgment  is  severe.  History  says,  indeed,  that  among  all  the  writings 
of  the  New  Testament,  the  Gospel  of  John  and  particularly  the  Prologue 
have  especially  contributed  to  establish  in  the  Church  Jesus-worship,  that 
is  to  say — from  the  standpoint  of  those  who  think  after  this  manner — a 
remnant  of  paganism.  Julian  the  Apostate  could  well  say  :  "  This  John 
who  declared  that  the  Word  was  made  flesh  must  be  regarded  as  the 
source  of  all  the  evil."1  This  is  the  result  of  John's  speculative  desires; 
he  has  thrown  into  the  Gospel  the  leaven  of  idolatry,  corrupted  the  wor- 
ship in  spirit  and  truth,  and  even  troubled  at  its  source  the  purity  of  the 
Christian  life,  for  eighteen  centuries.  Only  at  the  present  day  does  the 
Church  awake  from  this  long  infatuation  of  which  he  was  the  author,  and 
return  to  a  sound  mind.  Thus  so  far  as  he  is  concerned  has  the  Master's 
promise  been  verified  :  "  He  who  heareth  you,  heareth  me!  " 

When  we  penetrate  the  thought  of  the  Prologue  we  see  clearly  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  Logos  is  not  to  the  author's  mind  superimposed  upon  his 
faith,  but  that  it  forms  the  foundation  and  essence  of  it.  If  Jewish  unbelief 
with  regard  to  Jesus  was  something  so  monstrous,  it  is  because  He  was  not 
only  the  Messiah,  but  the  Word  who  had  come  into  the  midst  of  His 
own.  If  the  faith  of  the  Church  is  so  great  a  privilege  for  itself,  it  is 
because,  by  uniting  it  with  Jesus,  it  puts  the  Church  again  in  communica- 
tion with  the  divine  source  of  life  and  light,  with  the  Word  Himself.  This 
Logos-idea,  then,  belongs  to  the  essence  of  John's  faith  ;  it  is  no  longer 
for  him  a  means,  as  Rcuss  claims,  but  an  end,  as  Baur  would  have  it. 

III.  This  idea  was  simply  a  result.  It  was  evolved  for  John  from  the 
sum  of  his  reflections  on  the  person  of  Jesus.    He  himself  describes  to 

1  Cyril,  contra  Julianum. 


286  PROLOGUE. 

us  in  ver.  14  the  way  in  which  this  work  was  accomplished  in  him.  The 
Son  of  God  was  revealed  to  him  in  the  person  of  Jesus  through  the  glory 
full  of  grace  and  truth  which  distinguished  this  man  from  every  other 
man;  and  he  inscribed  this  discovery  at  the  beginning  of  his  narrative, 
in  order  that  he  might  make  the  reader  understand  the  decisive  import- 
ance of  the  history,  which  was  about  to  pass  under  his  eyes ;  here  is  not 
one  of  those  events  which  we  leave  after  having  read  it,  that  we  may 
pass  on  to  another:  "These  things  have  been  written,  that  you  may 
believe,  and  that  believing  you  may  have  life  "  (xx.  31).  The  question  in 
this  history  is  of  eternal  life  and  death  ;  to  accept,  is  to  live ;  to  reject,  is 
to  perish.  This  is  the  nota  bene  by  which  John  opens  his  narrative  and 
guides  the  reader. 

But  why  employ  so  singular  a  term  as  Logos  ? 

III.  The  Idea  and  Teem  Logos. 

We  have  here  to  study  three  questions :  1.  Whence  did  the  evangelist 
derive  the  notion  of  the  Logos?  2.  What  is  the  origin  of  this  term? 
3.  What  the  reason  of  its  use?  Having  discussed  these  questions  in  the 
Introduction  (pp.  173-181),  we  will  notice  here  only  that  which  has  a 
special  relation  to  the  exegetical  study  which  Ave  are  about  to  undertake. 

1.  First  of  all  we  establish  a  fact :  namely,  that  the  Prologue  only  sums 
up  the  thoughts  contained  in  the  testimony  which  Christ  bears  to  Him- 
self in  the  fourth  Gospel.  Weiss1  mentions  two  principal  points  in  which 
the  Prologue  seems  to  him. to  go  beyond  the  testimony  of  Christ:  1.  The 
notion  of  the  Word  by  which  John  expresses  the  pre-historic  existence  of 
Christ;  2.  The  function  of  creator  which  is  ascribed  to  Him  (ver.  3). 

Let  us  for  a  moment  lay  aside  the  term  Logos,  to  which  we  will  return. 
The  creative  function  is  naturally  connected  with  the  fact  of  the  eternal 
existence  of  the  Logos  in  God.  He  who  could  say  to  God :  "  Thou  didst 
love  me  before  the  creation  of  the  ivorld,"  certainly  did  not  remain  a  stranger 
to  the  act  by  which  God  brought  the  world  out  of  nothing.  How  is  it 
possible  not  to  apply  here  the  words  of  v.  17  :  "As  the  Father  ...  I  also 
work,"  and  v.  19,  20:  "The  Father  showeth  the  Son  all  that  he  doeth 
.  .  .  ,"  and  :  "Whatsoever  things  the  Father  doeth,  these  doeth  the  Son  in 
like  manner."  Add  the  words  of  Gen.  i.  26  :  "  Let  us  make  man  in  our 
image,"  to  which  John  certainly  alludes  in  the  second  clause  of  ver.  1  of 
the  Prologue.  All  the  other  affirniations  of  this  passage  rest  equally  on 
the  discourses  and  facts  related  in  the  Gospel ;  comp.  ver.  4:  "In  Him  was 
life  .  .  .  ,"  Avith  v.  26 :  "  As  the  Father  hath  life  in  himself  so  hath  he  given 
to  the  Son  to  have  life  in  himself;"  ver.  9:  "  There  was  the  true  light," 
with  viii.  12  and  ix.  5  :  "  /  am  the  light  of  the  world  .  .  .  He  that  followeth  me 
shall  have  the  light  of  life;  "  ver.  7  :  "  John  came  to  bear  ivitness,"  Avith  i.  34 : 
"And  I  have  seen,  and  have  borne  witness  that  this  is  the  Son  of  God,"  and 
ver.  33 :  "  Ye  have  sent  unto  John,  and  he  hath  borne  ivitness  to  the  truth  ;  " 

1  Johanneischer  Lehrbcgriff,  13G2. 


GENERAL   CONSIDERATIONS.  287 

what  is  said  of  the  presence  and  activity  of  the  Logos  in  the  world  in 
general  (ver.  10),  and  in  the  theocracy  in  particular  (to  His  home,  His  oivn, 
ver.  11),  previous  to  His  incarnation,  with  what  Jesus  declares  in  chap.  x.  of 
the  Shepherd's  voice  which  is  immediately  recognized  by  His  sheep,  and  this 
not  only  by  those  who  are  already  in  the  fold  of  the  Old  Covenant  (ver.  3), 
but  also  by  those  who  are  not  of  that  fold  (ver.  16),  or  what  is  said  of  the 
children  of  God  scattered  throughout  the  whole  tvorld  (xi.  52) ;  the  opposition 
made  in  the  Prologue  (ver.  13)  between  the  fleshly  birth  and  the  divine 
begetting,  with  the  word  of  Jesus  to  ]Si  codemus  (iii.  6) :  "  That  which  is 
bom  of  the  flesh  is  flesh;  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit;"  the  notion 
of  Christ's  real  humanity,  so  earnestly  affirmed  in  the  Prologue  (ver.  14), 
with  the  perfectly  human  character  of  the  person  and  affections  of  the 
Saviour  in  the  whole  Johannean  narrative ;  He  is  exhausted  by  fatigue 
(iv.  6) ;  He  thirsts  (iv.  7) ;  He  weeps  over  a  friend  (xi.  35) ;  He  is  moved,  even 
troubled  (xi.  33,  xii.  27);  on  the  other  hand,  His  glory,  full  of  grace  and 
truth,  His  character  as  Son  who  has  come  from  tlie  Father  (vv.  14-18),  with 
His  complete  dependence  (vi.  38  f.),  His  absolute  docility  (v.  30,  etc.), 
His  perfect  intimacy  with  the  Father  (v.  20),  the  divinity  of  the  works 
which  it  was  given  Him  to  accomplish,  such  as :  to  give  life,  to  judge  (v. 
21,  22) ;  the  perfect  assurance  of  being  heard,  whatsoever  He  might 
ask  for  (xi.  41,  42);  the  adoration  which  He  accepts  (xx.  28);  which  He 
claims  even  as  the  equal  of  the  Father  (v.  23);  the  testimony  of  John  the 
Baptist  quoted  in  ver.  15,  with  the  subsequent  narrative  (i.  27,  30);  the  gift 
of  the  law,  as  a  preparation  for  the  Gospel  (ver.  17),  with  what  the  Lord 
says  of  His  relation  to  Moses  and  his  writings  (v.  46,  47) ;  ver.  18,  which 
closes  the  Prologue  with  the  saying  in  vi.  46  :  "Not  that  any  one  hath  seen 
the  Father,  except  He  that  is  from  the  Father,  He  hath  seen,  the  Father  ;  "  the  terms 
Son  and  only-begotten  Son,  finally,  with  the  words  of  Jesus  in  vi.  40 :  "  This  is 
the  Fcdher's  will,  that  He  who  beholds  the  Son  .  .  .  ;  "  iii.  16 :  "  God  so  loved 
the  tvorld,  thai  He  gave  His  only-begotten  Son,"  and  iii.  18  :  "  Because  he  hath 
not  believed  on  the  name  of  the  only-begotten  Son  cf  God."  It  is  clear:  the 
Prologue  is  an  edifice  which  is  constructed  wholly  out  of  materials  furnished 
by  the  words  and  the  facts  of  Jesus'  history.  It  contains  of  what  is  pecu- 
liar to  John  only  the  idea  and  term  Logos  applied  to  His  pre-existent  state. 
It  is  certainly  this  term,  used  in  the  philosophical  language  of  the  time, 
which  has  led  so  many  interpreters  to  transform  the  author  of  the  Pro- 
logue into  a  disciple  of  Philo.  We  shall  limit  ourselves  here  to  the  men- 
tioning of  the  essential  differences  which  distinguish  the  God  of  Philo  from 
the  God  of  John,  the  Logos  of  the  one  from  the  Logos  of  the  other.  And 
it  shall  be  judged  whether  the  second  was  truly  at  the  school  of  the  first. 

1.  The  word  ?.6yoq,  in  John,  signities»as  in  the  whole  Biblical  text,  word. 
In  Philo,  it  signifies,  as  in  the  philosophical  language  of  the  Greeks, 
reason.  This  simple  fact  reveals  a  wholly  different  starting-point  in  the 
use  which  they  make  of  the  term. 

2.  In  Philo,  the  existence  of  the  Logos  is  a  metaphysical  theorem.  God 
being  conceived  of  as  the  absolutely  indeterminate  and  impersonal  being, 
there  is  an  impassable  gulf  between  Him  and  the  material,  finite,  varied 


288  PROLOGUE. 

world  which  we  behold.  To  fill  this  gulf,  Philo  needed  an  intermediate 
agent,  a  second  God,  brought  nearer  to  the  finite ;  this  is  the  Logos,  the 
half-personified  divine  reason.  The  existence  of  the  Logos  in  John  is  not 
the  result  of  such  a  metaphysical  necessity.  God  is  in  John,  as  in  all  the 
Scriptures,  Creator,  Master,  Father.  He  acts  Himself  in  the  world,  He 
loves  it,  He  gives  His  Son  to  it;  we  shall  even  see  that  it  is  He  who 
serves  as  intermediate  agent  between  men  and  the  Son  (vi.  37,  44),  which 
is  just  the  opposite  of  Philo's  theory.  In  a  word,  in  John  everything  in 
the  relation  of  the  Logos  to  God  is  a  matter  of  liberty  and  of  love,  while 
with  Philo  everything  is  the  result  of  a  logical  necessity.  The  one  is  the 
disciple  of  the  Old  Testament  interpreted  by  means  of  Plato  and  Zeno  ; 
the  other,  of  the  same  Old  Testament  explained  by  Jesus  Christ. 

3.  The  office  of  the  Logos  in  Philo  does  not  go  beyond  the  divine  facts 
of  the  creation  and  preservation  of  the  world.  He  does  not  place  this 
being  in  any  relation  with  the  Messiah  and  the  Messianic  kingdom.  In 
John,  on  the  contrary,  the  creating  Logos  is  mentioned  only  in  view  of 
the  redemption  of  which  He  is  to  be  the  agent ;  everything  in  the  idea  of 
this  being  tends  towards  His  Messianic  appearance. 

4.  To  the  view  of  Philo,  as  to  that  of  Plato,  the  principle  of  evil  is 
matter;  the  Jewish  philosopher  nowhere  dreams,  therefore,  of  making  the 
Logos  descend  to  earth,  and  that  in  a  bodily  form.  In  John,  on  the  con- 
trary, the  supreme  fact  of  history  is  this  :  "  The  Logos  was  made  flesh,"  and 
this  is  also  the  central  word  of  the  Prologue. 

The  two  points  of  view,  therefore,  are  entirely  different,  and  are  even  in 
many  respects  the  antipodes  of  each  other.  Nevertheless,  we  notice  in 
Philo  certain  ideas,  certain  terms,  which  establish  a  relation  between  him 
and  John.     How  are  we  to  explain  this  fact  ? 

The  solution  is  easy  :  it  is  not  difficult  to  find  a  common  source.  John 
and  Philo  were  both  Jews  ;  both  of  them  had  been  nourished  by  the  Old 
Testament.  Now  three  lines  in  that  sacred  book  converge  towards  the 
notion  of  an  intermediate  being  between  God  and  the  world.1  1.  The  ap- 
pearances of  the  Angel  of  the  Lord  (Malcach  Jehovah),  of  that  messenger 
of  God,  who  acts  as  His  agent  in  the  sensible  world,  and  who  some- 
times is  distinguished  from  Jehovah,  sometimes  is  identified  with 
Him ;  comp.  e.  g.  Gen.  xvi.  7  with  ver.  13 ;  again,  Gen.  xxxii.  28  with 
Hos.  xii.  4,  5.  God  says  of  this  mysterious  being,  Exod.  xxiii.  21 : 
"  My  name  (my  manifested  essence)  is  in  him."  According  to  the 
Old  Testament  (comp.  particularly  Zech.  xii.  10,  and  Mai.  iii.  1),  this 
divine  personage,  after  having  been  the  agent  of  all  the  theophanies,  is  to 
consummate  His  office  of  mediator  by  fulfilling  here  on  earth  the  func- 
tion of  Messiah.  2.  The  description  of  Wisdom,  Prov.  viii.  22-31 ;  un- 
doubtedly this  representation  of  Wisdom  in  Proverbs  appears  to  be  only 
a  poetic  personification,  while  the  Angel  of  the  Lord  is  presented  as  a  real 
personality.  3.  The  active  part  ascribed  to  the  Word  of  the  Lord.  This 
part  begins  with  the  creation  and  continues  in  the  prophetic  revelations 

i  See  Introd.  p.  177. 


GENERAL   CONSIDERATIONS. 


289 


comp.  Ps.  cvii.  20 ;  cxlvii.  15,  and  Is.  lv.  11,  where  the  works  accomplished 
by  this  divine  messenger  are  described. 

From  the  time  of  the  Babylonish  captivity,  the  Jewish  doctors  united 
these  three  modes  of  divine  manifestation  and  activity  in  a  single  concep- 
tion, that  of  the  permanent  agent  of  Jehovah  in  the  sensible  world,  whom 
they  designated  by  the  name  of  Memra  (Word)  of  Jehovah  (mm^-iD'D).1 
It  cannot  be  certainly  determined  whether  these  Jewish  learned  men 
established  a  relation  between  this  Word  of  the  Lord  and  the  person  of 
the  Messiah.2 

This  idea  of  a  divine  being,  organ  of  the  works  and  the  revelations  of 
Jehovah  in  the  sensible  world  could  not,  therefore,  fail  to  have  been 
known  both  by  John  and  by  Philo.  This  is  the  basis  common  to  the  two 
authors.  But  from  this  starting-point  their  paths  diverge.  John  passing 
into  the  school  of  Jesus,  the  idea  of  the  Word  takes  for  him  a  historical 
significance,  a  concrete  application.  Hearing  Jesus  affirm  that  He  is  be- 
fore  Abraham  ;  that  the  Father  loved  Him  be/ore  the  creation  of  the  world, 
...  he  applies  to  Him  this  idea  of  the  Word  which  in  so  many  different 
ways  strikes  its  roots  into  the  soil  of  the  Old  Testament,  while  Philo,  living 
at  Alexandria,  becomes  there  the  disciple  of  the  Greek  philosophers,  and 
seeks  to  interpret  by  means  of  their  speculations  and  their  formulas  the 
religious  ideas  of  the  Jewish  religion.  We  thus  easily  understand  both 
what  these  two  authors  have  in  common,  and  what  distinguishes  them  and 
even  puts  them  in  opposition  to  each  other. 


1  Introd.  pp.  177, 178. — Along  with  this  ex- 
pression the  terms  Shekinah  (habitation)  and 
Jekara  (splendor)  are  used  in  the  Targums,  or 
Chaldaic  paraphrases  of  the  O.  T.  The  two 
oldest,  those  of  Onkelos  and  Jonathan,  were 
generally  regarded  as  dating  from  the  mid- 
dle of  the  first  century  of  our  era.  Recent 
works  seem  to  bring  the  redaction  of  them 
down  to  the  third  or  fourth  century;  but 
only  the  redaction.  For  a  great  number  of 
points  prove  that  the  materials  go  back  to  the 
apostolic  times.  We  have  even  proofs  of  the 
existence  of  redactions  going  back  as  far  as 
the  time  of  John  Hyrcanus.  With  the  Jews 
everything  is  a  matter  of  tradition.  The  re- 
daction in  a  case  like  this  is  only  "  the  com- 
pletion of  the  work  of  ages."  Comp.  Schurer, 
Lehrb.  d.  neutest.  Zeitgesch.  pp.  478,  479. 

2  Perhaps  in  Palestine  there  was,  from  the 
early  times,  more  inclination  to  blend  to- 
gether the  notion  of  the  Word  and  the  Mes- 
sianic idea,  than  at  Alexandria.  There  is  in 
the  book  of  Enoch  (of  the  last  part  of  the 
second  century  before  Jesus  Christ)  and  in 
one  of  the  very  parts  of  it  which  are  almost 
unanimously  recognized  as  the  oldest,  a  re- 
markable passage,  which,  if  the  form  in 
which  we  have  it  is  the  exact  reproduction  of 
the  original  text,  would  allow  no  further 
doubt  on  this  point.    The  Messiah  is  there 

19 


represented  (chap.  xc.  10-38)  as  a  white  bull, 
which,  after  having  received  the  worship  of 
all  the  animals  of  the  earth,  transforms  all 
these  races  into  white  bulls  like  itself;  after 
which  the  poet  adds  :  And  the  first  bull  "  was 
the  Word,  and  this  word  was  a  powerful  ani- 
mal which  had  great  black  horns  on  its  head 
[the  emblem  of  the  divine  omnipoten'ce]" 
...  It  is  thus  that  Dillmann  in  his  classic 
work  on  this  book,  translates  these  words. 
Comp.  the  remarkable  article  of  M.  Wabnitz, 
Rev.  de  Theolog.  July,  1874.  The  Messianic 
application  of  this  passage  cannot  be  doubted 
(see  Schurer,  Lehrbuch  der  neutest.  Zeitgesch., 
p.  568).  There  seems,  then,  clearly  to  be  an 
indication  here  of  the  relation  established  in 
Palestine,  from  the  time  anterior  to  Jesus 
Christ,  between  the  divine  being  called 
Memra  or  Word  and  the  person  of  the  Mes- 
siah. There  is  no  doubt  of  the  Palestinian 
origin  of  the  Book  of  Enoch.  The  Book  of 
Wisdom,  which  was  composed  at  Alexandria 
a  century  before  Jesus  Christ,  speaks  of  Wis- 
dom, personifying  it  with  great  emphasis. 
But  it  is  impossible  to  discover  here  (even  in 
chap,  vii.)  the  notion  of  a  real  personality,  or 
to  recognize  in  the  representation  of  the 
persecuted  just  man  in  chap.  ii.  the  least  al- 
lusion to  the  person  of  the  Messiah. 


290  PROLOGUE. 

II.  With  respect  to  the  term  Word,  frequently  used,  as  it  already  was, 
in  the  Old  Testament,  then  employed  in  a  more  theological  sense  by  the 
Jewish  doctors,  it  must  have  presented  itself  to  the  mind  of  John  as  very 
appropriate  to  designate  the  divine  being  in  the  person  of  his  Master. 
What  confirms  the  Palestinian,  and  by  no  means  Alexandrian,  origin  of 
this  terni,  is  that  it  is  used  in  the  same  sense  in  the  Apocalypse,  which  is 
certainly  by  no  means  a  product  of  Alexandrian  wisdom ;  comp.  Acts 
xix.  13  :  "  And  his  name  was  the  Word  of  God."  Philo,  as  he  laid  hold  of 
this  Jewish  term  Logos,  in  order  to  apply  it  to  the  metaphysical  notion  which 
he  had  borrowed  from  Greek  philosophy,  could  not  do  so  without  also 
modifying  its  meaning  and  making  it  signify  reason  instead  of  word.  This 
is  what  he  did  in  general  with  regard  to  all  the  Biblical  terms  which  his 
Jewish  education  had  rendered  familiar  to  him,  such  as  archangel,  son, 
high-priest,  which  he  transferred  to  speculative  notions  according  to  the 
method  by  which  he  applied  the  word  angels  to  the  ideas  of  Plato. 

We  see,  therefore :  it  is  the  same  religion  of  the  Old  Testament,  which, 
developed  on  one  side  in  the  direction  of  Christian  realism,  on  the  other  in 
that  of  Platonic  idealism,  produced  these  two  conceptions  of  John  and  of 
Philo,  who  differ  even  more  in  the  central  idea  than  they  resemble  each 
other  in  that  which  envelops  it. 

In  applying  to  Jesus  the  name  Word,  John  did  not  dream,  therefore,  of 
introducing  into  the  Church  the  Alexandrian  speculative  theorem  which 
had  for  him  no  importance.  He  wished  to  describe  Jesus  Christ  as  the 
absolute  revelation  of  God  to  the  world,  to  bring  back  all  divine  revelations 
to  Him  as  to  their  living  centre,  and  to  proclaim  the  matchless  grandeur 
of  His  appearance  in  the  midst  of  humanity. 

III.  But  can  the  employment  of  this  extraordinary  term  on  his  part  have 
occurred  without  any  allusion  to  the  use  which  was  made  of  it  all  about 
him  in  the  regions  where  he  composed  his  Gospel?1  It  seems  to  me 
difficult  to  believe  this.  Asia  Minor,  particularly  Ephesus,  was  then  the 
centre  of  a  syncretism  in  which  all  the  religious  and  philosophical  doctrines 
of  Greece,  Persia  and  Egypt  met  together.  It  has  been  proved  that  in  all 
those  systems  the  idea  of  an  intermediate  divine  being  between  God  and 
the  world  appears,  the  Oum  of  the  Indians,  the  Horn  of  the  Persians,  the 
Logos  of  the  Greeks,  the  Memar  of  the  Jews.2  If  such  were  the  surround- 
ings in  the  midst  of  which  the  fourth  Gospel  was  composed,  we  easily 
understand  what  John  wished  to  say  to  all  those  thinkers  who  were  specu- 
lating on  the  relations  between  the  infinite  and  the  finite,  namely  :  "That 
connecting  link  between  God  and  man,  which  you  are  seeking  in  the 
region  of  the  idea,  we  Christians  possess  in  that  of  reality,  in  that  of 
history ;  we  have  seen,  heard,  touched  this  celestial  mediator.  Listen  and 
believe!  And  by  receiving  Him,  you  will  possess,  with  us,  grace  upon 
graced  In  introducing  this  new  term  into  the  Christian  language,  there- 
fore, John  had  the  intention,  as  Neander  thought,  of  opposing  to  the  empty 

i  Comp.  lntrod.,  p.  180  f.  (We  take  our  position  on  the  general  results 

*  Comp.  Baumlein,    Versuch  die  Bedentung       of  this  essay,  with  pretending  to  vouch  lor 
des  joh.  Logos  zu  entwickeln,  Tiibingen,  1828.       all  its  particular  citations.) 


GENERAL   CONSIDERATIONS.  291 

idealism  on  which  the  cultivated  and  unchristian  persons  around  him 
were  feeding,  the  life-giving  realism  of  the  Gospel  history  which  he  was 
proposing  to  set  forth.1 

IV.    The  Truth  and  Importance  of  the  Teaching  of  the  Prologue 
Respecting  the  Person  of  Jesus  Christ. 

If  the  Prologue  is  the  summary  of  the  testimonies  which  Jesus  bore  to 
Himself  in  the  course  of  His  ministry,  the  teaching  of  John  in  this 
passage  can  no  longer  be  regarded  as  the  last  term  of  a  series  of  phases 
by  means  of  which  the  Christological  conception  passed  into  the  midst  of 
the  Church ;  it  is  at  once  the  most  normal  and  the  richest  expression  of 
the  consciousness  which  Jesus  had  of  His  own  person.  Renan  is  not 
indisposed  to  accept  this  result.  Only  in  this  estimation  of  Himself  which 
Jesus  allowed  Himself  to  indulge,  he  sees  the  height  of  self-exaltation. 
But  this  explanation  is  incompatible  with  the  moral  character  of  Jesus. 
If  He  overrated  Himself  even  to  folly,  how  are  we  to  understand  that 
inward  calm,  that  profound  humility,  that  unalterably  sound  judgment, 
that  so  profoundly  true  appreciation  of  all  the  moral  relations,  whether 
between  God  and  man,  or  between  man  and  man,  which  Renan  himself 
recognizes  in  Him?  The  kingdom  of  truth  and  holiness  which  has  come 
from  the  appearance  of  Jesus  is  enough  to  set  aside  the  suspicions  of  His 
modern  biographer  and  to  decide  in  the  evangelist's  favor. 

The  critic  might  limit  himself  to  calling  in  question  the  historical  accuracy 
of  the  discourses  which  John  puts  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus.  But  we  think 
that  we  have  demonstrated  the  full  confidence  which  we  are  obliged  to 
accord  to  them  (Introd.,  pp.  93-134).  They  cannot  be  separated  from 
the  facts  with  which  they  are  closely  connected,  and  these  facts  are  as 
well,  not  to  say  better,  guaranteed  than  those  of  the  Synoptics  (Introd., 
pp.  68-93). 

Reuss  urges,  as  an  objection,  a  contradiction  between  the  Prologue,,  in 
which  the  perfect  equality  of  the  Father  and  Son  (such  as  ecclesiastical 
orthodoxy  professes)  is  taught,  and  the  authentic  words  of  Jesus  in  the 
Gospel,  starting  from  the  idea  of  the  subordination  of  the  Son.2  The 
exegesis  of  the  Prologue  has  proved  that  this  contradiction  does  not  exist, 
since  subordination  is  taught  in  the  Prologue,  as  clearly  as  in  the  discourses. 
Let  us  recall  the  expressions :  "  he  was  with  God,"  ver.  1 ;  "  the  only-begotten 
Son,"  ver.  14;  "who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,"  ver.  18;  these  expressions 
imply  subordination  as  much  as  any  saying  related  in  the  Gospel.  Reuss' 
mistake  is  that  of  wishing  by  all  means  to  identify  the  conception  of  the 
Prologue  with  the  Nicene  formulas. 

Baur3  does  not  believe  in  the  possibility  of  reconciling  the  notion  of  the 
incarnation  with  that  of  the  miraculous  birth  taught  in  the  Synoptics. 
But  if  we  take  this  expression,  became  flesh,  seriously, — as  Baur  does  not — 
the  alleged  contradiction  is  solved  of  itself.  As  in  this  case  the  subject  of 
the  Gospel  hisory  is  not  longer,  as  Baur  claims,  the  Logos  continuing  in 

iOesch.  d.  Pflanzung  d.  chrislt.  Kirche,  ii.  p.  *Hist.  de  In  thiol,  chrtt.,  II.,  p.  440  £. 

649.  »  Theol.  Jalirb.  1B44,  ill.,  p  24  L 


292  PROLOGUE. 

His  divine  state,  but  a  true  man,  the  fact  of  a  real  birth  of  this  man, 
whether  miraculous  or  natural,  becomes  a  necessary  condition  of  his 
human  existence. 

The  most  serious  objection  is  derived  from  the  difficulty  of  reconciling 
the  pre-existence  of  Christ  with  His  real  humanity.  Thus  Liicke,1  while 
fully  recognizing  that  there  is  something  dangerous  in  the  rejection  of  the 
pre-existence,  thinks,  nevertheless,  that  this  dogma  implies  a  difference  of 
essence  between  the  Saviour  and  His  brethren,  which  seriously  compro- 
mises both  His  character  as  Son  of  man,  and  His  redemptive  function. 
Weizsacker  takes  his  position  at  the  same  point  of  view.2  He  acknowledges 
that  the  communion  of  the  Son  with  the  Father  is  not  simply  moral ;  that 
Jesus  did  not  gain  His  dignity  as  Son  by  His  fidelity ;  but  that  it  is,  much 
rather,  the  presupposition  of  all  that  He  did  and  said ;  that  His  moral 
fidelity  maintained  this  original  relation,  but  did  not  produce  it ;  that,  it 
is  the  unacquired  condition'of  the  consciousness  which  He  had  of  Him- 
self. On  the  other  hand,  he  maintains  that  the  superior  knowledge  which 
Christ  possessed,  could  not  be  the  continuation  of  that  which  He  brought 
from  above;  for  that  origin  would  take  away  from  it  the  progressive 
character,  limited  to  the  task  of  each  moment,  which  we  recognize  in  it 
and  which  makes  it  a  truly  human  knowledge.  And,  as  for  the  moral 
task  of  Jesus,  it  would  also  lose  its  truly  human  character ;  for  where 
would  be  the  moral  conflict  in  the  Son,  if  He  still  possessed  here  below 
that  complete  knowledge  of  the  divine  plan  which  He  had  had  eternally 
in  the  presence  of  the  Father?  There  are,  therefore,  in  the  fourth  Gospel 
according  to  this  critic,  two  Christs  placed  in  juxtaposition  :  the  one,  truly 
man,  as  Jesus  Himself  teaches  in  harmony  with  the  Synoptics ;  the  other, 
divine  and  pre-existent — the  Christ  of  John.  In  attempting  to  resolve 
this  difficulty,  we  do  not  conceal  from  ourselves  that  we  are  entering  upon 
one  of  the  most  difficult  problems  of  theology.  What  we  shall  seek  after, 
in  the  lines  which  follow,  is  not  the  reconciliation  of  Scripture  with  any 
orthodoxy  whatever,  but  the  agreement  of  Scripture  with  itself. 

The  Scriptures,  while  teaching  the  eternal  existence  of  the  Word,  do 
not,  by  any  means,  teach  the  presence  of  the  divine  state  and  attributes 
in  Jesus  during  the  course  of  His  earthly  life.  They  teach,  on  the  con- 
trary, the  complete  renouncing  by  Jesus  of  that  state,  with  a  view  to  His 
entrance  into  the  human  state.  The  expression  :  the  Word  was  made  flesh 
(i.  14),  speaks  of  the  divine  subject  only  as  reduced  to  the  human  state ; 
it  does  not  at  all,  therefore,  suppose  the  two  states,  divine  and  human,  as 
co-existent  in  Him.  The  impoverishment  of  Christ  of  which  Paul  speaks 
2  Cor.  viii.  9,  and  His  voluntary  emptying  of  Himself  described  in  Phil.  ii. 
6,  7,  have  no  meaning  except  as  we  see  in  this  renunciation  of  the  divine 
state  and  the  entrance  into  the  human  mode  of  existence  two  facts  which 
were  coincident.  The  Gospel  history  confirms  these  declarations.  Jesus 
does  not  on  earth  any  longer  possess  the  attributes  which  constitute  the 
divine  state.    Omniscience  He  does  not  have.    He  Himself  declares  His 

>  Vol.  I.,  p.  378.  ijahrb.  fur  deutsche  Theol.  VII.  4,  p.  639  and  655-664. 


GENERAL   CONSIDERATIONS.  293 

ignorance  on  «a  particular  point  (Mark  xiii.  32).  In  our  Gospel,  also,  the 
expression  :  "  When  he  heard  that  the  Jews  had  cast  him  out.  .  .  "  (ix.  35), 
proves  the  same  thing.  In  general,  every  question  put  by  Him  would 
have  been  only  a  pretence,  if  He  had  still  possessed  omniscience.  He 
possessed  a  superior  prophetic  vision,  undoubtedly  (John  iv.  17,  18) ;  but 
this  vision  was  not  omniscience.  And  I  do  not  think  that  the  facts  by  any 
means  confirm  the  opinion  of  Wcizsacker,  that  John's  narrative  ascribes 
to  Jesus  a  knowledge  which  was  a  reminiscence  of  His  heavenly  knowl- 
edge. The  exegesis  will  show  that  Jesus  never  enunciated  anything  what- 
soever which  did  not  pass  through  His  human  consciousness.  No  more 
does  He  possess  omnipotence.  For  He  prays  and  is  heard  (xi.  42) ;  as  for 
His  miracles,  it  is  the  Father  who  works  them  on  His  behalf  (v.  30).  He 
is  equally  bereft  of  omnipresence.  He  rejoices  in  His  absence  at  the  time 
of  the  sickness  of  Lazarus  (xi.  15).  His  love,  perfect  as  it  is,  is  neverthe- 
less not  divine  love.  This  is  immutable ;  but  who  will  maintain  that 
Jesus  in  His  cradle  loved  as  He  did  at  the  age  of  twelve,  and  at  the  age 
of  twelve,  as  He  did  on  the  cross?  Relatively  perfect,  at  each  given 
moment,  His  love  increased  from  day  to  day,  both  in  intensity  and  with 
reference  to  voluntary  self-sacrifice,  and  in  extent  and  with  reference  to 
the  circle  which  it  embraced,  at  first  His  family,  then  His  people,  then 
the  whole  of  mankind.  It  was  a  truly  human  love.  For  this  reason,  St. 
Paul  says :  "  The  grace  of  one  man,  Jesus  Christ "  (Rom.  v.  15).  His  holi- 
ness was,  also,  a  human  holiness;  for  it  was  realized  at  every  moment 
only  at  the  cost  of  a  struggle,  through  renouncing  lawful  enjoyment  and 
the  victory  over  the  no  less  lawful  dread  of  pain  (xii.  25,  27 ;  xvii.  19  a.). 
This  holiness  is  so  human  that  it  is  to  pass  into  us  and  become  ours  (xvii. 
19  b.).  All  these  texts  clearly  prove  that  Jesus  did  not  possess,  while  on 
earth,  the  attributes  which  constitute  the  divine  state.  And,  indeed,  how 
could  He  otherwise  terminate  His  earthly  career  by  asking  back  again 
the  glory  which  He  had  before  His  incarnation  (xvii.  5)  ? 

Can  we  conceive  of  such  an  emptying  of  Himself  on  the  part  of  a  divine 
being  ?  Keil,  while  acknowledging  that  there  is  here  a  problem  which 
has  not  yet  been  solved,  thinks  that  the  emptying  of  the  divine  attributes 
took  place  through  the  very  fact  of  the  entrance  of  the  subject  who  pos- 
sessed them  into  a  more  limited  nature.  Steinmeyer,  likewise  says:  The 
very  fact  of  the  entrance  into  a  material  body  had  the  effect  of  reducing 
to  the  condition  of  latency  the  qualities  which  befit  an  absolute  person- 
ality. We  might  carry  back  to  this  idea  the  saying  of  Paul  (Phil.  ii.  7) :  "  He 
divested  himself  {emptied),  having  taken  the  form  of  a  servant,"  by  making 
the  act  expressed  in  the  participle  having  taken  the  antecedent  and  con- 
dition of  that  which  is  expressed  by  the  finite  verb:  "  he  divested  himself." 
But  we  may  also  conceive  of  the  act  of  voluntary  divesting  as  preceding 
the  entrance  into  the  human  state,  and  as  being  the  condition  of  it.  And 
it  is  rather  to  this  idea,  as  it  seems  to  me,  that  the  passage  in  Philippians 
leads  us.  However  this  may  be,  Scripture  does  not,  by  any  means,  teach 
that  He  came  to  earth  with  His  divine  attributes — a  fact  which  implies 
that  He  had  renounced  not  only  their  use,  but  also  their  possession. 


294  PROLOGUE. 

Even  the  consciousness  of  His  anterior  existence  as  a  divine  subject 
would  have  been  incompatible  with  the  state  of  a  true  child  and  with  a 
really  human  development.  The  word  which  He  uttered  at  the  age 
of  twelve  years  (Luke  ii.  49)  is  alleged ;  but  it  simply  expresses 
the  feeling  which  Jesus  had  already  at  that  age  of  being  entirely 
devoted  to  the  cause  of  God,  as  a  well-disposed  son  is  to  the  interests 
of  his  father.  With  a  moral  fidelity  like  His,  and  in  the  permanent 
enjoyment  of  a  communion  with  God  which  sin  did  not  impair,  the 
child  could  call  God  His  Father  in  a  purely  religious  sense,  and  without 
resulting  in  a  consciousness  within  Him  of  a  divine  pre-existence. 
Certainly  the  feeling  of  His  redemptive  mission  must  have  developed 
itself  from  his  early  age,  especially  through  the  experience  of  the  con- 
tinual contrast  between  His  moral  purity  and  the  sin  by  which  He  saw 
all  those  who  surrounded  Him  affected,  even  the  best  of  them  such  as 
Joseph  and  Mary.  The  only  one  in  health  in  this  caravan  of  sick  persons 
with  whom  He  made  His  journey,  He  must  early  have  had  a  glimpse  of 
His  task  as  physician  and  have  inwardly  consecrated  Himself  wholly  to 
it.  But  there  is  in  the  Gospel  history  not  a  word,  not  an  act  attributed  to 
Jesus  which  leads  us  to  suppose  in  the  child  or  the  youth  the  conscious- 
ness of  His  divine  nature,  and  of  His  previous  existence.  It  is  to  the 
apocryphal  gospels  that  we  must  go  to  seek  this  contra-natural  and  anti- 
human  Jesus.  It  was,  if  we  mistake  not,  on  the  day  of  His  baptism, 
when  the  moment  arrived  at  which  He  was  to  begin  to  testify  of  Himself, 
of  what  He  was  for  God  and  of  what  God  was  for  Him  and  for  the  world, 
that  God  thought  it  fit  to. initiate  Him  into  the  mystery  of  His  life  as  Son 
anterior  to  His  earthly  existence.  This  revelation  was  contained  in  the 
words  :  "  Thou  art  my  Son,"  which  could  not  refer  only  to  His  office  as 
Messiah,  since  they  were  explained  by  the  following  words  :  "  In  thee  I 
am  well-pleased."  He  recovered  at  that  time  that  consciousness  of  Son- 
ship  which  He  had  allowed  to  become  extinguished  in  Him,  as  at  night, 
as  we  surrender  ourselves  to  sleep,  we  lose  self-consciousness ;  and  He 
was  able  from  that  moment  to  make  the  world  understand  the  greatness 
of  the  gift  which  was  made  to  it  and  of  the  love  of  which  He  was  the 
object  on  God's  part. 

The  following,  therefore,  as  it  seems  to  me,  are  the  constituent  elements 
of  this  mysterious  fact : 

1.  As  man  was  created  in  the  image  of  God  and  for  the  divine  likeness, 
the  Logos  could,  without  derogation,  descend  even  to  the  level  of  a  human 
being  and  work  oiit  His  development  from  that  moment  in  truly  human 
conditions. 

2.  Receptivity  for  the  divine,  aspiration  towards  the  divine,  being  the 
distinctive  feature  of  man  among  the  other  natural  beings,  the  essential 
characteristic  of  the  life  of  the  Logos  made  man  must  be  incessant  and 
growing  assimilation  to  the  divine  in  all  its  forms. 

3.  This  religious  and  moral  capacity  of  the  Logos  having  entered  into 
human  existence  is  not  to  be  measured  by  that  which  each  particular 
man  possesses.    Through  the  fact  of  His  miraculous  birth,  He  reproduces 


GENERAL  CONSIDERATIONS.  295 

not  the  type  of  a  determinate  father,  but  that  of  the  race  itself  which  He 
represents  a  second  time,  as  it  had  been  represented  the  first  time  by  the 
father  of  all  mankind.  In  Him,  therefore,  is  concentrated  the  aspiration 
of  the  whole  race,  the  generic  and  absolute  receptivity  of  humanity  for 
the  divine.  Hence  the  incomparable  character  of  this  personality,  to 
which  all  are  forced  to  render  homage. 

4.  Having  arrived  at  the  consciousness  of  His  eternal  relation  to  God, 
the  Logos  can  only  aspire  to  recover  the  divine  state  in  harmony  with  the 
consciousness  which  He  has  of  Himself;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  He  is 
too  closely  connected  with  humanity  to  consent  to  break  the  bond  which 
unites  Him  to  it.  There  remains,  therefore,  only  one  thing :  to  raise 
humanity  with  Himself  to  His  glory  and  thus  to  realize  in  it  the  highest 
thought  of  God,  that  which  St.  Paul  calls  "  the  purpose  of  the  wisdom  of 
God  for  our  glory  "  (1  Cor.  ii.  7),  the  elevation  of  man,  first,  to  communion 
with  Christ,  and  then,  in  Him,  to  the  possession  of  the  state  of  the  Man- 
God.  This  is  the  accomplishment  of  the  eternal  destiny  of  believers,  as 
St.  Paul  also  states  it  in  Rom.  viii.  29,  30. 

The  course  of  the  development  of  the  earthly  life  of  Jesus  is  easily 
understood  when  we  place  ourselves  at  this  point  of  view.  By  His  birth 
as  a  member  of  the  race,  as  Son  of  man,  humanity  finds  itself  replaced  in 
Him  at  its  normal  starting-point;  it  is  fitted  to  begin  anew  its  development, 
which  sin  had  perverted.  Up  to  the  age  of  thirty,  Jesus  accomplishes  this 
task.  He  elevates  humanity  in  His  own  person,  by  His  perfect  obedience 
and  the  constant  sacrifice  of  Himself,  from  innocence  to  holiness.  He  is 
not  yet  conscious  of  Himself;  perhaps,  in  the  light  of  the  Scriptures,  He 
begins  to  have  a  presentiment  of  that  which  He  is  in  relation  to  God. 
But  the  distinct  consciousness  of  His  dignity  as  Logos  would  not  be  com- 
patible with  the  reality  of  His  human  development  and  with  the  accom- 
plishment of  the  task  assigned  to  this  first  jieriod  of  His  life.  This  task 
being  once  fulfilled,  the  conditions  of  His  existence  change.  A  new  work 
opens  for  Him,  and  the  consciousness  of  His  dignity  as  well-beloved  Son, 
far  from  being  incompatible  with  the  work  which  He  has  still  to  accom- 
plish, becomes  the  indispensable  foundation  of  it.  Indeed,  in  order  to 
bear  witness  of  God  as  Father,  He  must  necessarily  know  Himself  as  Son. 
The  baptism  is  the  decisive  event  which  opens  this  new  phase.1  Meeting 
the  aspirations  and  presentiments  of  the  heart  of  Jesus,  the  Father  says 
to  Him  :  "  Thou  art  my  Son."  Jesus  knows  Himself  from  this  moment  as 
the  absolute  object  of  the  divine  love.  He  can  say  now  what  He  could 
not  have  said  before  :  "  Before  Abraham  was,  I  am."  This  consciousness 
of  His  dignity  as  Son,  the  recompense  for  His  previous  fidelity  accom- 
panies Him  everywhere  from  this  hour.  It  forms  the  background  of  all 
His  manifestations  in   acts  and  words  (see  Weizsacker's  fine  passage, 

1  Since  the  time  when  the  Gnostics  falsified  significance  in  the  personal  development  of 

the  meaning  of  the  haptism  hy  making  it  the  the  Lord  (see  Christ  et  scs  Umoins,  7»,  8",  and 

epoch  of  the  descent  of  the  divine  ^Eon  upon  9«  Mires;  t.  i.,  pp.  22O-20G;  particularly,  pp. 

the    man   Jesus,  de  Rougemont  is  the  first  250-255). 
who  has  ventured  to  give  to  this  fact  its  full 


296  PROLOGUE. 

pp.  120,  121).  Heaven  is  opened  to  Him  and  He  testifies  of  what  He  sees 
there. 

The  baptism,  however,  while  giving  to  Jesus  His  consciousness  of  Sonship, 
did  not  give  back  to  Him  His  state  of  Sonship,  His  form  of  God.  There  is 
still  an  immense  disproportion  between  that  which  He  knows  Himself  to 
be  and  that  which  He  really  is.  Herein,  especially,  there  is  for  Him  the 
possibility  of  temptation  :  "  If  thou  art  the  Son  of  God  ..."  Master  of 
all,  He  disposes  of  nothing,  and  must  at  every  moment  address  Himself 
with  a  believing  and  filial  heart  to  the  paternal  heart  of  God.  It  is  only 
through  the  resurrection  and  the  exaltation  which  follows  it,  that  His  posi- 
tion is  placed  on  the  level  of  the  consciousness  which  He  has  of  Himself, 
and  that  He  recovers  the  divine  state.  Henceforth,  all  the  fullness  of  the 
divinity  dwells  in  Him,  and  that  humanly,  and  even,  as  Paul  says,  bodily 
(Col.  ii.  9).  Finally,  ten  days  after  His  personal  assumption  into  the  divine 
glory,  He  begins  from  the  day  of  Pentecost  to  admit  believers  to  a  par- 
ticipation in  His  state  of  sonship.  He  thus  prepares  the  day  on  Avhich,  by 
His  Parousia,  He  will  consummate  outwardly  their  participation  in  His 
glory,  after  having  re-established  in  them  the  perfect  holiness  which  was 
the  basis  of  His  own  exaltation.  Living  images  of  the  Logos  from  our 
creation,  we  shall  then  realize  that  type  of  divine-human  existence  which 
we  at  present  behold  in  Him.  Such  was  the  divine  plan,  such  was  the 
last  wish  of  Jesus  Himself  (John  xvii.  24)  :  "Father,  I  will  that  where  I  am, 
they  also  may  be  with  me." 

The  true  formula  of  the  incarnation,  according  to  our  Gospel,  would, 
therefore,  be  the  following:  That  filial  communion  with  God  which  the  Logos 
realized  before  His  incarnation  in  the  glorious  and  permanent  form  of  the  divine 
life,  He  has  realized  in  Jesus  since  His  incarnation  in  the  humble  and  progres- 
sive form  of  human  existence.1 

The  school  of  Baur  think  that  they  discover  an  essential  difference  be- 
tween John's  conception  and  that  of  Paul  respecting  this  point.  The 
latter  could  have  seen  in  the  pre-existent  Christ  only  the  prototypic  man, 
but  not  a  divine  being.  This  view  is  rested  upon  1  Cor.  xv.  47  :  "  The  first 
man,  derived  from  the  earth,  is  earthy ;  the  second  man  is  from  heaven." 
But  this  conclusion,  which  is  founded  upon  no  other  passage,  has  really  no 
support  in  this  one.  The  whole  fifteenth  chapter  of  First  Corinthians  has 
an  eschatological  bearing,  for  it  treats  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body. 
The  words  cited,  therefore,  apply  to  the  now  glorified  Christ,  and  not  to 
the  pre-existent  Christ ;  this  is'  also  proved  by  the  words  which  immedi- 
ately follow  :  "  As  is  the  earthly  (Adam),  such  are  they  also  that  are  earthly 
(men  in  their  present  state) :  as  is  the  heavenly  (Christ),  such  are  they  also 


>  We  would  not  wish  to  make  Gess  jointly  185fi,  which  I  had  the  honor  of  reviewing  at  the 

responsible  with  us  for  all  the  ideas  which  we  time  of  its  appearance,  in  a  series  of  articles, 

here  express.     We  are  aware  that  on  some  Bevue  ckrelienne,  18.V7  and  1858.    The  first  two 

points  we  are  not  entirely  in  accord  with  him.  volumes   of  the   second   edition   have   been 

But  the  view  which  we  present  is  neverthe-  already   published.      Lot   us  hope,   that    tho 

less,  in  general,  that  which  he  has  developed  closing  part  of  the  work  will  soon  appear, 
in  his  fine  work,  Le/ire  von  dcr  Person  Cnristi, 


GENERAL  CONSIDERATIONS.  297 

that  arc  heavenly  (the  believers  risen  from  the  dead).  For  as  we  have  borne 
the  image  of  the  earthly,  ive  shall  also  bear  the  image  of  the  heavenly."  Cer- 
tainly, Paul  does  not  mean  to  say  that  we  shall  bear  the  image  of  the 
pre-existent  Christ,  but  that  of  the  Christ  as  man  raised  from  the  dead 
and  glorified.  Even  the  term  second  {man)  would  be  sufficient  to  prove 
this;  since  the  pre-existent  Christ  would  be  the  first  Adam,  the  Adam 
Kadmon  of  Jewish  theology.  The  idea  which  Baur  hnds  in  this  passage 
is,  moreover,  incompatible  with  two  other  expressions  of  the  same  epistle, 
in  which  two  divine  functions,  the  creation  of  the  universe  and  the  lead- 
ing of  Israel  through  the  wilderness,  are  ascribed  to  the  pre-existent  Christ 
(viii.  (3  and  x.  4).  These  functions  surpass  the  idea  of  a  mere  heavenly 
man. 

When  Paul  calls  Christ  "the  image  of  the  invisible  God,"  "the  first-born 
before  every  creature,"  the  one  "  in  whom  all  things  have  been  created 
and  all  things  subsist "  (Col.  i.  15,  16),  he  says  exactly  what  John  says, 
when  he  calls  Him  the  Word  (the  image  of  the  invisible  thought),  and  when 
he  adds  :  "  All  things  were  made  by  Him,  and  nothing  which  has  been' 
made  was  made  without  Him."  The  two  terms,  image  and  Word,  express, 
under  two  different  figures,  the  same  notion  :  God  affirming  with  an  affirm- 
ation which  is  not  a  simple  verbum  volens,  but  a  living  person,  all  that  He 
thinks,  all  that  He  wills,  all  that  He  loves  that  is  most  perfect,  giving  thus 
in  this  being  the  word  of  His  thought,  the  reflection  of  His  being,  the  end 
of  His  love,  almost  His  realized  ideal.  Let  us  picture  to  ourselves  an  artist 
capable  of  giving  life  to  the  master-piece  of  his  genius,  and  entering  into 
personal  relation  with  this  child  of  his  thought ;  such  is  the  earthly  rep- 
resentation of  the  relation  between  God  and  the  Word.  This  word  is 
divine ;  for  the  highest  affirmation  of  God  cannot  be  less  than  God  Him- 
self. It  is  eternal;  for  God  cannot  have  begun  at  any  time  to  affirm  Him- 
self. It  is  single  ;  for  it  is  His  absolute  saying,  the  perfect  enunciation  of 
His  being,  consequently  His  primordial  sovereign  utterance,  in  which  are 
included,  in  advance,  all  His  particular  sovereign  utterances  which  will 
re-echo  successively  in  time.  It  is,  accordingly,  this  Word  who,  in  his 
turn,  will  call  forth  all  beings.  They  will  be  His  free  affirmation,  as  He  is 
Himself  that  of  God.  He  will  display  in  the  universe,  under  the  forms 
of  space  and  time,  all  the  riches  of  the  divine  contents  which  God  has 
eternally  included  in  Him.  The  creation  will  be  the  poem  of  the  Son  to 
the  glory  of  the  Father. 

This  notion  of  the  Word,  as  a  creative  principle,  has  the  greatest  im- 
portance as  related  to  the  conception  of  the  universe.  The  universe  rests 
thereby  on  an  absolutely  luminous  basis,  which  secures  its  final  perfection. 
Blind  and  eternal  matter,  fatal  necessity,  are  banished  from  a  world  which 
is  the  work  of  the  Word.  The  ideal  essence  of  all  things  is  absolutely 
protected  by  this  view.1 

1  See  Lange,  Leben  Jesu,  iv.  pp.  553-556.    We  by  the  view  which  we  have  just  set  forth 

do  not  think  it  necessary  here  to  treat  of  the  touching  the  fact  of  the  incarnation.     Pre- 

questions  which  are  raised,  with  regard  to  cisely  because  the  existence  of  the  Son  is  a 

the  internal  relations  of  the  divine  persons,  matter  of  love,  and  not  of  necessity  (as  with 


0 

298  PROLOGUE. 

The  notion  of  the  person  of  Christ  which  is  contained  in  the  Prologue 
is  of  decisive  importance  for  the  Church. 

If  the  supreme  dignity  ascribed  to  Jesus  is  denied  Him,  however  worthy 
of  admiration  this  Christ  may  be,  humanity  may  and  should  always 
"  look  for  another;  "  for  the  path  of  progress  is  unlimited.  The  gate  thus 
remains  open  for  one  who  comes  afterward  :  "  I  am  come  in  my  Father's 
name,  and  ye  receive  me  not ;  another  shall  come  in  his  own  name,  and 
him  ye  will  receive  "  (v.  43). 

But  if  in  Jesus  the  Word  was  really  made  flesh,  there  is  no  higher  one 
to  be  looked  for.  The  perfect.revelation  and  communication  of  God  are 
accomplished ;  eternal  life  has  been  realized  in  time ;  there  is  nothing 
further  for  every  man  but  to  accept  and  live,  or  to  reject  and  perish. 

We  understand,  therefore,  why  John  has  placed  this  preamble  at  the 
head  of  his  narrative.  Faith  is  not  faith — that  is  to  say,  absolute,  without 
reserve — except  so  far  as  it  has  for  its  object  that  beyond  which  it  is  impos- 
sible to  go. 

Philo),  there   is  nothing,   when    the   Word  ordinarily    exercises    by  the    intermediate 

descends  to  the  world  to  become  Himself  one  agency  of  the  Word.     No  doubt,  the  Word 

of  the  beings  of  the  universe,  to  prevent  the  has  life  in  Himself  and  communicates  it  to 

Father's  ability  to  enter  directly  into  relation  the  world,  but  because  the  Father  has  given 

with  the  world,  and  to  exercise  in  it  the  func-  Him   this   privilege;   thus   everything   pro- 

tions  of  creator  and   preserver  which   He  ceeds  always  from  the  Father  (John  v.  2C). 


FIRST  PART. 


FIRST   MANIFESTATIONS    OF   THE   WORD.— BIRTH   OF  FAITH.— 
FIRST  SYMPTOMS  OF  UNBELIEF. 

I.  19-IV.  54. 

As  compared  with  the  two  parts  which  are  to  follow,  of  which  one 
specially  traces  out  the  development  of  unbelief  (y.-xii.),  the  other,  that  of 
faith  (xiii.-xvii.),  this  First  Part  has  a  character  which  may  be  called 
neutral.  It  serves  as  the  starting-point  for  the  two  others.  It  contains 
the  first  revelations  of  the  object  of  faith  and  unbelief,  of  Jesus  as  Son  of 
God.  Jesus  is  declared  to  be  the  Messiah,  and  Son  of  God  by  John  the 
Baptist ;  a  first  group  of  disciples  is  formed  about  Him.  His  glory  beams 
forth  in  some  miraculous  manifestations  within  the  circle  of  His  private 
life.  Then  He  inaugurates  His  public  ministry  in  the  temple,  at  Jerusa- 
lem. But  this  attempt  having  failed,  He  limits  Himself  to  teaching,  while 
performing  miracles  and  collecting  about  Himself  adherents  by  means  of 
baptism.  Finally,  observing  that,  even  in  this  more  modest  form,  His 
activity  gives  umbrage  to  the  dominant  party  at  Jerusalem,  He  withdraws 
into  Galilee,  after  having  sowed  by  the  way  the  germs  of  faith  in  Samaria. 
This  summary  justifies  the  title  which  we  give  to  this  First  Part,  and  .the 
more  general  character  which  we  ascribe  to  it  as  compared  with  those 
which  follow. 

Tbe  evangelist  himself  seems  to  have  wished  to  divide  it  into  two  cycles 
by  the  distinctly  marked  correlation  between  the  two  remarks,  ii.  11  and 
iv.  54,  which  are  placed,  one  at  the  end  of  the  story  of  the  wedding  at 
Cana:  "  This  was  the  beginning  of  Jesus'  miracles  which  took  place  at  Cana  in 
Galilee;  and  He  manifested  His  glory,  and  His  disciples  believed  on  Him;  " 
the  other,  which  closes  this  whole  Part,  after  the  healing  of  the  nobleman's 
son,  "Again,  Jesus  did  this  second  miracle  when  He  came  from  Judea  into 
Galilee."  By  the  manifest  correlation  of  these  two  sentences  the  evangelist 
calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  there  were,  in  this  first  period  of  Jesus' 
ministry,  two  sojournings  in  Judea,  each  of  which  terminated  with  a  re- 
turn to  Galilee,  and  that  both  of  these  returns  were  alike  marked  by  a 
miracle  performed  at  Cana.  This  indication  of  the  thought  of  the  histor- 
ian should  be  our  guide.  Accordingly,  we  divide  this  Part  into  two  cycles 
— the  one  comprising  the  facts  related  i.  19— ii.  11 ;  the  other,  the  narra- 
tives ii.  12-iv.  54.    In  the  first,  Jesus,  introduced  into  His  ministry  by 

299 


300  FIRST  PART. 

John  the  Baptist,  fulfills  it  without  as  yet  going  out  of  the  inner  circle 
of  His  first  disciples  and  His  family.  The  second  relates  His  first  steps  in 
His  public  ministry. 

FIEST  CYCLE. 

I.  19-11.  11. 

This  cycle  comprises  three  sections :  1.  The  testimonies  borne  by  John 
the  Baptist  to  Jesus,  i.  19-37 ;  2.  The  first  personal  manifestations  of  Jesus 
and  the  faith  of  His  first  disciples,  i.  38-52 ;  3.  His  first  miraculous  sign, 
ii.  1-11.  The  facts  related  in  these  three  sections  fill  a  week  which  forms, 
as  Bengel  has  remarked,  the  counterpart  of  the  final  Passion-week.  The 
one  might  be  called  the  week  of  the  betrothal  of  the  Messiah  to  His  peo- 
ple; the  other  the  time  of  the  absolute  rupture  long  since  announced  by 
Jesus :  "  When  the  bridegroom  sludl  be  taken  away,  then  shall  the  friends  of 
the  bridegroom  fast." 

FIRST  SECTION. 

I.  19-37. 

The  Testimonies  of  John  the  Baptist. 

These  testimonies  are  three  in  number  and  were  given  on  three  succes- 
sive days  (see  vv.  29,  35,  "  the  next  day)."  These  three  days,  eternally 
memorable  for  the  Church,  had  left  on  the  heart  of  the  evangelist  an  in- 
effaceable impression.  On  the  first  he  had  heard  that  solemn  declaration 
made  before  a  deputation  of  the  Sanhedrim  :  The  Messiah  is  present! 
(ver.  26) ;  and  this  word,  no  doubt,  had  thrilled  him  as  it  had  the  multi- 
tude who  were  there.  The  next  day,  the  forerunner,  pointing  out  Jesus, 
had  changed  his  first  declaration  into  that  still  more  important  one: 
Behold  Him !  and  faith  in  Jesus,  prepared  for  on  the  preceding  day,  had 
illuminated  with  its  first  ray  the  heart  of  John  and  that  of  the  Baptist's 
hearers.  Finally,  on  the  third  day,  by  repeating  his  declaration  of  the 
day  before,  the  Baptist  evidently  meant  to  say  :  Follow  Him  !  John  imme- 
diately leaves  the  Baptist,  to  attach  himself  to  the  new  Master  whom  he 
points  out  to  him. 

Why  did  the  author  make  the  first  of  these  three  days  the  starting-point 
for  his  narration  ?  If  his  intention  was  to  make  us  witness  the  opening, 
not  only  of  his  own  faith  and  that  of  the  apostles,  but  of  faith  itself  in  the 
midst  of  mankind,  he  could  not'  choose  another  starting-point.  The 
Messiah  announced,  then  pointed  out,  then  followed;  this  certainly  is  the 
normal  beginning  of  such  a  narrative. 

I. — First  Testimony  :  w.  19-28. 

In  unfolding  in  the  Prologue  the  contents  of  faith,  the  apostle  had 
adduced  two  testimonies  of  John  the  Baptist  (vv.  6-8  and  ver.  15) ;  the 
second  contains,  as   Baur  well   says,  "the  idea  of  the   absolute  pre- 


CHAP.  I.  19.  301 

existence  of  the  Messiah,"  and  consequently  the  true  thought  of  the 
author — that  of  the  divinity  of  Christ.  But  when  was  the  testimony, 
cited  at  ver.  15,  given?    This  is  what  the  apostle  proceeds  to  relate. 

Ver.  19.  "  And  this  is  the  testimony  tvhich  John  gave  when 1  the  Jeivs  sent  * 
priests  and  Levites  from  Jerusalem  to  ask  him,  Who  art  thou?"  It  is  quite 
strange  to  see  a  narrative  beginning  with  the  word  and.  This  fact  is 
explained  by  the  relation  which  we  have  just  indicated  between  ver.  19 
and  ver.  15.  What  gives  an  especial  importance  to  this  declaration  of 
John  the  Baptist,  is  its  official  character.  It  was  uttered  in  presence  of  a 
deputation  of  the  Sanhedrim,  and  as  a  reply  to  a  positive  inquiry  emanat- 
ing from  that  body,  the  religious  head  of  the  Jewish  nation.  The  San- 
hedrim, of  whose  existence  we  find  the  first  traces  only  in  the  times  of  Anti- 
pater  and  Herod  (Josephus,  Antiq.  xiv.  9,  4),  was  undoubtedly  the  continua- 
tion or  renewal  of  a  very  ancient  institution.  We  are  reminded  of  the  tribunal 
of  the  seventy-two  elders  established  by  Moses  (Num.  xi.  16).  Under 
Jehoshaphat  (2  Chron.  xix.  8),  mention  is  also  made  of  a  supreme  tribunal 
sitting  at  Jerusalem  and  composed  of  a  certain  number  of  Levites,  priests 
and  fathers  of  Israel.  Comp.,  perhaps,  also  Ezek.  viii.  11  f.,  "  seventy  men 
of  the  elders  of  Israel."  In  Maccabees  (1  Mace.  xii.  5 ;  2  Mace.  i.  10 ;  iv. 
44,  etc.),  the  body  called  yepovaia,  senate,  plays  a  part  analogous  to  that  of 
these  ancient  tribunals,  yet  without  the  possibility  of  establishing  a  historic 
continuity  between  these  institutions.  At  the  time  of  Jesus,  this  senate, 
called  Sanhedrim,  was  composed  of  71  members,  including  the  president 
(Tract.  Sanhedr.  i.  6).  These  members  were  of  three  classes:  1.  The 
chief-priests  (apxiepeic),  a  term  which  probably  designates  the  high-priests 
who  had  retired  from  office,  and  the  members  chosen  from  the  highest 
priestly  families  ;  2.  The  elders  of  the  people  {npecfivTepoi,  apxovreg  rob  laov), 
a  term  which  undoubtedly  comprehends  the  other  members  in  general, 
whether  lay  members  or  Levites ;  3.  The  scribes  (ypa/ufiarelc),  a  term  desig- 
nating especially  the  experts  in  the  law,  the  jurists  by  profession.  The 
high-priest  was  ex-officio  the  president.3  The  Sanhedrim  had  up  to  this 
time  closed  its  eyes  to  John  the  Baptist's  work.  But  observing  that  things 
were  daily  taking  a  more  serious  turn,  and  that  the  people  were  beginning 
even  to  ask  themselves  whether  John  were  not  the  Christ  (comp.  Luke  iii. 
15),  they  felt  at  length  that  they  must  use  their  authority  and  officially 
present  to  him  the  question  respecting  his  mission.  Jesus  alludes  to  this 
step  (v.  33) ;  afterwards,  He  Himself  answered  a  similar  inquiry  with  a 
refusal  (Matt.  xxi.  23  f. ).  The  Mishna  says  expressly  :  "  The  judgment  of 
a  tribe,  of  a  false  prophet  and  of  a  high-priest  belongs  to  the  tribunal  of  the 
seventy-one."  Sanh.  i.  5.  We  meet  here,  for  the  first  time,  the  title,  "the 
Jews"  which  plays  an  important  part  in  the  fourth  Gospel.    This  name, 

1  Origen  reads  Tore  (then)  once,  elsewhere  Sanhedrim  had  an  elective  president  and 

ore  (when).  vice-president  (the  Nasi   and  the    Av-Beth- 

*  B.  C.  It»"9  Syr.  and  other  Vss.  add  after  Din),  seems  now  to  have  been  thoroughly  re- 

oireo-TeiXav  :  7rpo?  avrov  (to  him),  words  which  futed  by  Kuenen  and  Schurer.    See  Schurer'a 

A  X  place  after  Aeuira*.  Lehrbuch  der  Zeitgesch.,  jj  23. 

8  The  old  opinion,  according  to  which  the 


302  FIRST   PART. 

by  its  etymology,  properly  designates  only  the  members  of  the  tribe  of 
Judah ;  but  after  the  return  from  the  captivity  it  is  applied  to  the  whole 
people,  because  the  greater  part  of  the  Israelites  who  returned  to  their  own 
land  belonged  to  this  tribe.  It  is  in  this  general  sense  that  we  find  it  in 
ii.  6,  "After  the  Jews'  manner  of  purifying ;  "  ii.  13,  "  The  passover  of  the 
Jews  ;  "  iii.  1,  "  One  of  the  rulers  of  the  Jews."  In  this  purely  political  sense, 
this  term  may  even  include  the  Galileans  (vi.52).  But  the  name  has  most 
frequently  in  our  Gospel  a  religious  coloring.  It  designates  the  nation  as 
an  unbelieving  community,  which,  in  the  majority  of  its  members  and 
through  its  authorities,  had  rejected  the  Messiah.  This  particular  sense  is 
explained  by  the  history ;  for  the  focus  of  the  hatred  and  rejection  of  Jesus 
was  found  at  Jerusalem  and  in  Judea.  This  unfavorable  sense  attached  to 
the  name  the  Jews  in  our  Gospel,  has  been  adduced  for  the  purpose  of 
proving  that  the  author  of  this  book  could  not  have  been  himself  of 
Jewish  origin.1  But  after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  the  Jewish  nation  had 
ceased  to  exist  as  a  political  body ;  this  name  of  Jews  thus  became  a 
purely  religious  title ;  and  as  John  himself  belonged  to  a  different  religious 
community,  it  is  quite  natural  that  he  speaks  of  them  as  people  who  were 
henceforth  foreigners  to  him.  The  Jewish-Christian  author  of  the  Apoca- 
lypse expresses  himself  still  more  severely  with  respect  to  his  old  fellow- 
countrymen,  when  he  calls  them  "  the  Synagogue  of  Satan"  (iii.  9) ;  and 
Mark,  in  spite  of  his  Jewish  origin,  also  designates  them  by  this  word,  the 
Jews,  absolutely  as  John  does  (vii.  3).  The  words :  from  Jerusalem  depend, 
not  on  the  substantive  the  Jews,  but  on  the  verb  sent.  The  design  of  this 
limiting  phrase  is  to  make  the  solemnity  of  the  proceeding  appear;  it  had 
an  official  character,  because  it  emanated  from  the  centre  of  the  theocracy. 
Levites  were  joined  with  the  priests.  It  has  been  often  supposed  that  they 
merely  played  the  part  of  bailiffs.  But,  in  several  passages  of  the  Old 
Testament  (2  Chron.  xvii.  7-9 ;  xxxv.  3 ;  Neh.  viii.  7),  we  see  that  it  was 
the  Levites  who  were  charged  with  instructing  the  people  in  the  law,  from 
which  fact  Hengstenberg  has,  not  without  reason,  concluded,  that  the 
scribes,  so  frequently  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament,  generally  belonged 
to  this  order,  and  that  it  is  in  this  character,  and  consequently  as  members 
of  the  Sanhedrim,  that  some  of  their  number  figured  in  the  deputation. 
The  question  which  they  address  to  John  the  Baptist  relates  to  the  expec- 
tation, prevailing  at  that  epoch  in  Israel,  of  the  Messiah  and  of  the  extra- 
ordinary messengers  who,  according  to  the  popular  opinion,  were  to 
precede  His  coming.  "  Who  art  thou?  "  signifies  in  the  context,  Art  thou 
one  of  these  expected  personages,'  and  what  one  ?  We  shall  see  in  ver.  25 
what  embarrassment  this  question  was  preparing  for  John,  in  case  he  re- 
fused to  declare  his  title. 

Origen  thought  that  with  the  second  clause  of  ver.  19  (5-e  anscTeilev)  a 
new  testimony  of  John  the  Baptist  began.  The  first  was,  according  to 
him,  that  of  ver.  15  f,  to  which  ver.  19  a  refers.     Consequently,  he  appears 

i  Fischer,  Tiibingen  Zeitschrift,  1840,  and  so  Hilgenfeld.    Wo  have  refuted  this  objection  in 
the  Iutrod. 


chap.  i.  20,  21.  303 

to  have  read  t6te,  then,  instead  of  ore  (when).  To  complete  this  series  of 
misconceptions,  he  only  needed  to  find  further  on  a  third  testimony 
addressed  to  a  new  deputation ;  he  succeeded  in  this  through  his  interpre- 
tation of  ver.  24  (see  on  that  verse).  Cyril  and  some  modern  writers  begin 
with  the  when  of  ver.  19  a  new  sentence,  of  which  the  principal  clause  is 
found  in  ver.  20 :  "When  the  Jews  sent.  .  .  .  he  declared."-  But  the  nai, 
and,  before  the  verb  ufioMyqce,  lie  declared,  renders  this  construction  inad- 
missible. The  particle  nai,  and,  is  never  in  John  the  sign  of  the  apodosis, 
not  even  in  vi.  57.  The  words  irpbc  avrvv.  to  him,  which  are  added  by  a 
portion  of  the  Alexandrian  authorities,  and  which  two  Mjj.  place  after 
leviraq,  are  probably  interpolated.  Meyer  and  Weiss  wrongly  make  teal 
ufioMyrjae,  and  he  declared,  depends  on  ore,  when;  this  construction  makes 
the  sentence  a  dragging  one.  It  is  better  to  translate :  "And  this  is  the 
testimony  .  .  .  (ver.  19)  .  .  .  and  he  declared." 

Ver.  20.  "And  he  confessed,  and  denied  not,  and  confessed : l  I  am  not  the 
Christ." 2  Before  pointing  out  the  contents  of  the  response  of  John  the 
Baptist,  the  evangelist  sets  forth  its  characteristics:  it  was.  ready,  frank, 
categorical.  The  first  he  confessed,  indicates  spontaneity,  eagerness.  By 
the  negative  form  :  he  denied  not,  the  evangelist  means  to  say  he  did  not 
for  an  instant  yield  to  the  temptation  which  he  might  have  had  to  deny. 
The  second  he  confessed  is  added  in  order  to  connect  with  it  the  profession 
which  is  to  follow.  This  remarkable  form  of  narrative  (comp.  i.  7,  8) 
seems  to  us,  whatever  Weiss  may  say  of  it,  to  be  more  naturally  explained 
if  we  suppose  an  allusion  to  people  who  were  inclined  to  give  to  the  per- 
son of  John  the  Baptist  an  importance  superior  to  his  real  dignity. 
According  to  the  reading  of  the  Alexandrian  authorities  and  Origen,  we 
must  translate  :  "  It  is  not  J  who  am  the  Christ  (eyu  ovk  el/d)."  This  reply 
would  have  been  suitable,  if  the  question  had  been,  "  Is  it  thou  who  art 
the  Christ?"  But  the  question  is  merely,  "  Who  art  thou?"  and  the  true 
response  is  consequently  that  which  is  found  in  the  T.  R.  following  the 
Byzantine  authorities:  "I  am  not  the  Christ  (ovk  elfil  eyw),"  that  is,  "I  am 
indeed  something,  but  not  the  Christ." 

Ver.  21.  "And  they  asked  him :  ivhatthcn?3  Art  thou*  Elijah?  And  he 
said  I  am  not.  Art  thou  the  prophet  ?  And  he  answered,  No."  Some  inter- 
preters understand  the  question  ri  ovv  (ivhat  then  ?)  in  the  same  or  nearly 
the  same  sense  as  the  preceding :  "  If  thou  art  not  the  Christ,  what  art 
thou  then  ?"  But  the  two  following  questions  :  "  Art  thou  Elias  .  .  .  ?  " 
would  imply  rig  rather  than  rl  in  this  sense.  De  Wette  sees  in  these  words 
an  adverbial  expression :  "  What  then ! "  This  sense  is  pointless.  We 
must,  rather,  supply  io-rt,  with  Meyer:  "What  then  is  the  case?  What 
extraordinary  thing,  then,  is  happening  ?  "  This  form  of  question  betrays 
impatience.  There  was,  indeed,  in  the  unprecedented  behavior  of  John 
the  Baptist  something  which  seemed  to  indicate  an  exceptional  condition. 

1 D  omits  koi,  and  K  Syr™'  Or.  the  second  Mjj.  Syr,ch  and  T.  R.  place  ovk  ei/ut  before  e-yw. 

icot  u>ixo\oyr)crev.  8  b  reads  av  ovv  ti  (what  art  thou   then  1), 

'SABCLX4  Itpierique  Cop.  Or.  (3  times)  instead  of  ti  ovv  (what  then  f) 

read  eyu>  ovk  eifii,  while  T  A  and  9  other  *X  B  L  reject  av  after  «. 


304  FIRST   PART. 

Malachi  had  announced  (iv.  5)  the  coming  of  Elijah  as  the  one  preparing 
for  the  great  Messianic  day,  and  we  know  from  Justin's  Dialogue  with 
Trypho  the  Jew,  that,  according  to  a  popular  opinion,  the  Messiah  was 
to  remain  hidden  until  he  had  been  pointed  out  and  consecrated  by  this 
prophet.  Several  passages  of  the  Gospels  (Matt.  xvi.  14 ;  Mk.  vi.  15)  prove 
that  there  was,  besides  this,  an  expectation  of  the  reappearance  of  some 
other  prophet  of  the  ancient  times,  Jeremiah  for  example.  Among  these 
expected  personages,  there  was  one  who  was  especially  called  the  prophet. 
Some  distinguished  him  from  the  Messiah  (John  vii.  40,  41) ;  others  con- 
founded him  with  the  Messiah  (vi.  14).  The  question  was,  evidently,  as 
to  the  personage  announced  by  Moses  ("  a  prophet  like  unto  me  "),  in  the 
promise  in  Deut.  xviii.  18.  Of  course,  the  people  did  not  picture  to  them- 
selves a  second  Elijah  or  a  new  Moses  in  the  spiritual  sense,  as  when  the 
angel  says  of  John  the  Baptist  (Luke  i.  17),  "He  shall  go  in  the  spirit  and 
power  of  Elijah."  It  was  the  person  himself  who  was  to  reappear  in  flesh 
and  bones.  How  could  John  the  Baptist  have  affirmed,  in  this  literal 
sense,  his  identity  with  the  one  or  the  other  of  these  ancient  personages  ? 
On  the  other  hand,  how  could  he  enter  into  the  domain  of  theological 
distinctions?  Besides,  this  mode  of  discussion  would  be  scarcely  in 
accordance  with  his  character.     His  reply,  therefore,  must  be  negative. 

Vv.  22,  23.  "  They  said  then  to  him,  Who  art  thou  f  that  ive  may  give  an  answer 
to  those  who  sent  us.  What  sayest  thou  of  thyself  f  23.  He  saidt  lam  a  voice 
crying  in  the  wilderness :  Make  straight  the  way  of  the  Lord,  as  said  the  prophet 
Isaiah."  The  deputies  have  now  exhausted  the  suppositions  which  were 
furnished  by  the  accepted. Messianic  programme  of  their  time.  Nothing 
remains  for  them  but  to  propose  to  John  again  the  question  which  shall 
make  him  abandon  the  negative  attitude  to  which  he  is  limiting  himself: 
"  Who  art  thou  f  "  that  is  to  say,  "  What  personage  art  thou?  "  For  his  ex- 
traordinary conduct  must  be  occasioned  by  an  exceptional  mission.  John 
replies  to  it  by  a  passage  from  Isaiah,  which  contains  at  once  the  explana- 
tion asked  for  and  the  guarantee  of  his  mission.  The  sense  of  the  pro- 
phetic passage  is  this :  Jehovah  is  on  the  point  of  appearing  in  order  to 
manifest  His  glory.  At  the  moment  which  precedes  His  appearance, 
without  the  appearing  of  any  person  on  the  scene,  a  voice  is  heard  which 
invites  Israel  to  make  straight  the  way  by  which  the  Lord  is  to  come.  The 
question  in  this  description  is  not  of  the  return  from  the  captivity,  but  of 
the  Messianic  appearance  of  Jehovah.  As  in  the  East,  before  the  arrival 
of  the  sovereign,  the  roads  are  straightened  and  leveled,  so  Israel  is  to 
prepare  for  its  divine  King  a  reception  worthy  of  Him ;  and  the  function 
of  the  mysterious  voice  is  to  engage  her  in  carrying  out  this  work  of  prep- 
aration, lest  the  signal  grace  of  which  she  is  to  be  the  object  may  turn  into 
judgment.  John  applies  to  himself  so  much  more  willingly  these  words 
of  Isaiah,  because  it  fully  accords  with  his  desire  to  put  his  own  person  into 
obscurity  and  to  let  nothing  but  his  message  appear :  "A  voice."  The 
words  in  the  wilderness  can  be  referred,  in  Hebrew  as  in  Greek,  either  to 
the  verb  to  cry,  or  to  the  verb  to  make  straight.  As  regards  the  sense,  it 
amounts  to  the  same  thing,  since  the  order  sounds  forth  in  the  place  where 


chap.  i.  22-24.  305 

it  is  to  be  executed.  The  reference  to  the  preceding  verb  is  more  natural, 
especially  in  the  Greek.  The  wilderness  designates  in  the  East  uncultivated 
lands,  the  vast  extents  of  territory  which  serve  for  pasturage,  and  which 
are  crossed  by  winding  paths,  and  not  by  roads  worthy  of  a  sovereign. 
Such  is  the  emblem  of  the  moral  state  of  the  people ;  the  royal  way  by 
which  Jehovah  is  to  enter  is  not  yet  prepared  in  their  hearts.  The  feeling 
of  national  repentance  is  still  wanting.  The  sojourning  of  the  forerunner 
in  the  wilderness  indicated  clearly,  through  this  literal  conformity  to  the 
prophetic  emblem,  the  moral  accomplishment  of  the  prophecy.  Does  the 
formula  of  citation,  "  as  said,"  also  belong  to  the  reply  of  the  Baptist?  Or 
is  it  a  remark  of  the  evangelist  ?  What  makes  us  incline  to  the  first  alter- 
native is,  that  the  forerunner  had  more  need  of  legitimating  himself  than 
the  evangelist  had  of  legitimating  him  so  long  afterwards.  To  reply  as 
John  does  was  to  enunciate  his  commission,  and  to  declare  his  orders.  It 
was  to  say,  in  fact,  to  these  deputies,  experts  in  the  knowledge  of  the  law 
and  the  prophets,  that,  if  he  was  not  personally  one  of  the  expected  an- 
cient personages,  his  mission  Avas,  nevertheless,  in  direct  connection  with 
the  approaching  manifestation  of  the  Messiah.  This  was  all  which  the 
Sanhedrim  and  the  people  practically  needed  to  know. 

The  inquiry  had  borne,  at  first,  upon  the  office  of  John  the  Baptist.  The 
deputation  completed  it  by  a  more  special  interrogation  respecting  the 
rite  of  baptism,  which  he  is  allowing  himself  to  introduce  into  the  theoc- 
racy without  the  authorization  of  the  Sanhedrim.  The  evangelist  pre- 
pares the  way  for  this  new  phase  of  the  conversation  by  a  remark 
having  reference  to  the  religious  character  of  the  members  of  the  depu- 
tation. 

Ver.  24.  "  And  those  who1  were  sent  ivere  of  the  Pharisees."  We  translate 
according  to  the  T.  R.,  which  is  in  conformity  with  the  majority  of  the 
Mjj.,  with  the  Mnn.,  and  with  the  greater  part  of  the  Vss.  According  to 
this  reading,  the  participle  an ea- akjiivoi,  sent,  is  defined  by  the  article  oi,  the  ; 
it  is  the  subject  of  the  sentence.  The  design  of  this  remark  added  here 
by  John  is  easily  understood ;  it  is  to  explain  the  question  which  is  to  fol- 
low. John  likes  to  supply  in  this  way,  as  a  narrative  progresses,  the  cir- 
cumstances, omitted  at  first,  which  serve  gradually  to  explain  it ;  com  p. 
i.  41,45;  iv.  30;  ix.  14;  xi.  5,  18;  xiii.  23,  etc.  The  Pharisees  were  the 
ultra  conservatives  in  Israel;  no  one  could  have  been  shocked  more  than 
they  by  the  innovation  which  John  the  Baptist  had  taken  it  upon  himself 
to  make  in  introducing  baptism.  Lustrations  undoubtedly  formed  a  part 
of  the  Jewish  worship.  It  is  even  maintained  that  the  pagan  proselytes 
were  subjected  to  a  complete  bath,  on  occasion  of  their  passing  over  to 
Judaism.  But  the  application  of  this  symbol  of  entire  pollution  to  the 
members  of  the  theocratic  people  was  so  strange  an  innovation,  that  it 
must  have  awakened  in  the  highest  degree  the  susceptibility  of  the  author- 
ities who  were  guardians  of  the  rites,  and  very  particularly  that  of  the 
party  most  attached  to  tradition.     The  Pharisaic  element  also  was  the 

■KABCL  and  Orig.  reject  oi  {the)  before  anecTa^ntvoi.  (sent). 

20 


306  FIRST   PART. 

main  one  in  the  deputation  which  the  Sanhedrim  had  chosen.  We  see 
how  skillfully  the  plan  of  the  examination  had  been  laid ;  first  of  all,  the 
question  relative  to  the  mission ;  then,  that  which  concerned  the  rite ;  for 
the  latter  depended  on  the  former.  Nothing  can  be  more  simple  than 
the  course  of  the  narrative,  as  thus  understood.  This  mode  of  explain- 
ing the  intention  of  the  remark  in  ver.  2-1  appears  to  me  more  natural 
than  that  of  Weiss  and  Keil,  according  to  which  John  would  thereby  char- 
acterize the  spirit  of  unbelief  which  animated  the  interrogators  of  the 
Baptist.  The  fact  of  their  unbelief  not  being  noticed  in  the  narrative,  did 
not  demand  explanation.  Opposed  to  the  reading  of  the  T.  R.  there  is 
another  supported  by  the  Alexandrian  authorities  and  by  Origen,  and 
adopted  by  Teschendorf,  and  Westcott  and  Hort,  which  rejects  the  article  ol 
before  anearaAfievoi, ;  the  meaning  is :  "  and  they  had  been  sent  from  the 
Pharisees,"  or,  as  Origen  understood  it :  "  and  there  were  persons  sent 
(come)  from  the  Pharisees,"  as  if  the  question  were  of  another  deputation 
than  that  of  ver.  19.  Neither  the  one  nor  the  other  of  these  meanings  is 
possible.  For  the  Pharisees  did  not  form  an  officially  constituted  body, 
from  which  a  proceeding  like  this  which  is  here  spoken  of  could  have 
started.  The  Alexandrian  reading  is,  therefore,  indefensible,  as,  in  this  in- 
stance, Weiss  and  Keil  themselves  acknowledge.  It  is,  probably,  as  is  so 
frequently  the  case,  an  arbitrary  correction  by  Origen,  to  serve  his  false 
interpretation  of  this  whole  passage,  from  the  end  of  the  Prologue.  Weiss 
and  Keil  see  here  a  mere  case  of  negligence  of  a  copyist  arising  from  the 
preceding  ml,  in  which  the  ol  was  lost.  But  how  many  similar  errors 
should  we  not  have,  in  that,  case,  in  the  New  Testament ! 

Ver.  25.  "  And  they  asked  him  and l  said  unto  him;  why  baptizest  thou 
then,  if  thou  art  not  the  Christ,  nor2  Elijah,  nor'1  the  prophei."  The  strictest 
guardians  of  rites  conceded,  indeed,  to  the  Messiah  or  to  one  of  His  fore- 
runners the  right  of  making  innovations  in  the  matter  of  observances ; 
and  if  John  had  declared  himself  one  of  these  personages,  they  would 
have  contented  themselves  with  asking  for  his  credentials,  and  would  have 
kept  silence  respecting  his  baptism,  sufficiently  legitimated  by  his  mission. 
In  fact,  it  seems  to  follow  from  this  verse  itself  that,  on  the  foundation  of 
words  such  as  those  of  Ezek.  xxxvi.  25,  26,  and  Zech.  xiii.  1,  a  great 
national  lustration  was  expected  as  an  inauguration  of  the  kingdom  of  the 
Messiah.  But  John  the  Baptist  having  expressly  declined  the  honor  of 
being  one  of  the  expected  prophets,  the  deputation  had  the  right  to  say 
to  him  :  "  Why  then  dost  thou  baptize  ?  "  According  to  the  reading  of  the 
T.  R.  nor,  nor,  the  thought  is  this:  "The  supposition  that  John  is  the 
Christ  is  set  aside  ;  there  remains,  therefore,  no  other  way  of  explaining  his 
baptism  except  that  he  is  either  the  one  or  the  other  of  the  two  expected 
forerunners;  now  he  declares  that  he  is  neither  the  one  nor  the  other; 
why  then  .  .  .  etc.  This  delicate  sense  of  the  disjunctive  negative  was  not 
understood ;   hence,  in  our  view,  the  Alexandrian  reading  ov6e,  ovdi,  nor 

H<  rejects  rjp<oT7)(7av  outo»>  «ai  (the  copyist  after  most  of  the  Mjj.  and  Mnn.,  ovSe  ovie  is 
has  confounded  the  two  kh).  read  in  A  B  C  L  and  Orig.  (0  times). 

*  Instead  of  ovrt  ovre,  which  the  T.  R.  reads 


chap.  i.  25-27.  307 

even,  which  puts  the  three  cases  on  a  common  level.  The  partisans  of  the 
Alexandrian  text  (Weiss,  Keil,  Westcoit,  etc.),  judge  otherwise.  The  posi- 
tion of  John  the  Baptist,  in  presence  of  this  question  and  after  his  pre- 
vious answer,  became  a  difficult  one.  His  interrogators,  indeed,  had 
counted  on  this  result. 

Vv.  26,  27.  "  John  ansivered  them  saying,  Yea,  I  baptize  with  water ; 1  in 
the  midst  of  you'2  there  standeth3  one.  whom  yon  know  not;  27.  He4  who 
comes  after  me — but  who  tvas  before  me 5 — the  latchet  of  whose  sandal  I  am  not 
worthy  to  loose."  This  reply  has  been  regarded  as  not  very  clear  and  as 
embarrassed.  De  Wette  even  thinks  that  it  does  not  correspond  altogether 
with  the  question  proposed.  The  generally  adopted  explanation  is  the 
following  :  "  My  baptism  with  water  does  not,  in  any  case,  encroach  upon 
that  of  the  Messiah,  which  is  of  an  altogether  superior  nature ;  it  is  only 
preparatory  for  it."  John  would  in  some  sort  excuse  his  baptism  by  try- 
ing to  diminish  it,  and  by  reminding  them  that  beyond  this  ceremony  the 
Messianic  baptism  maintains  the  place  which  belongs  to  it.  But,  first  of 
all,  this  would  be  to  evade  the  question  which  was  put ;  and  the  criticism 
of  de  Wette  would  remain  a  well-founded  one.  For  the  baptism  of  John 
was  attacked  in  itself  and  not  as  being  derogatory  to  that  of  the  Messiah. 
Then,  the  words  h  Man,  with  water,  should  be  placed  at  the  beginning :  "  It 
is  only  with  water  that  I  baptize,"  and  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  would 
necessarily  be  mentioned  in  the  following  clause,  as  an  antithesis. 
Finally,  it  would  scarcely  be  in  harmony  with  the  character  of  the  Baptist 
to  shelter  himself  under  the  insignificance  of  his  office  and  to  present  his 
baptism  as  an  inoffensive  novelty.  This  reply,  properly  understood,  is,  on 
the  contrary,  full  of  solemnity,  dignity,  even  threatening ;  it  makes  appar- 
ent the  importance  of  the  present  situation,  into  the  mystery  of  which 
John  alone,  until  now,  is  initiated.  "  The  Messiah  is  present :  this  is  the 
reason  why  I  baptize  !  "  If  the  Messianic  time  has  really  come,  and  he  is 
himself  charged  with  inaugurating  it,  his  baptism  is  thereby  justified  (see 
ver.  23).  This  feeling  of  the  gravity  of  the  situation  and  of  the  import- 
ance of  his  part  is  expressed  in  the  iy&,  I,  placed  at  the  beginning  of  the 
answer,  the  meaning  of  which,  as  the  sequel  proves,  is  this:  "J  baptize 
with  water,  and  in  acting  thus  I  know  what  I  do :  for  He  is  present 
who  ..."  We  have  given  the  force  of  this  pronoun  by  the  affirmation 
Yea  !  The  kyu,  I,  is  ordinarily  contrasted  with  the  Messiah,  by  making 
an  antithesis  between  the  baptism  of  water  and  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit. 
But  this  latter  is  not  even  mentioned,  and  this  interpretation  results  from 
a  recollection  of  the  words  of  the  Baptist  in  the  Synoptics.  Hence  also 
probably  came  the  introduction  of  the  particle  6i,  but  (in  what  follows 

1 K  alone :  ev  ra>  vSan  instead  of  fv  vSan.  these  words  are  rejected  by  X  B  C  L  Tb  Syr0"* 

2After  ncaos  the  T.  R.  reads  5c  (but)  with  all  and  Orig.  (6  times).    The  art.  o  before  ep^one- 

the  authorities,  except  X  B  C  L  and  Orig.  (10  vo<;  is  omitted  by  X  B  Orig. 

times)  who  reject  this  word.  6  After  epxonevos  T.    R.  adds  o?   ennpcHrOev 

4B  L  Tb  o-Tij/cei  (stnt);  X  G  :  «<tt7jk€i  (stabat);  nov  Yeyo'ei'  (who  has  become  before  me)  with 

T.  R.  with  all  the  rest  eo-rrjxei'  (stat).  the  same  authorities  as  above;  these  words 

4T.  R.  reads  after  oi&are,  avro<;  earn'  (i7  is  he)  are  rejected  by  the  authorities  which  reject 

with  13  Mjj.,  the  Mnn.,  It.  Vg.  Syr.  Orig. (once);  auTos  eon  fit  in  he). 


308  FIRST  PART. 

after  the  word  fiecnc),  which  is  rightly  omitted  by  the  Alexandrian  authori- 
ties. It  is  precisely  because  he  knows  that  the  Messiah  is  present  among 
them,  that  he  baptizes  with  water  and  that  he  has  the  right  to  do  so. 
This  reply,  accompanied  as  it  undoubtedly  was,  with  a  significant  look 
cast  upon  the  crowd,  in  which  the  mysterious  personage  of  whom  he  was 
thinking  could  be  found,  must  have  produced  a  profound  sensation 
among  his  hearers.  The  two  readings  earr/Kev  and  gttjkei,  although  one  is 
in  the  perfect  and  the  other  in  the  present,  have  the  same  sense : 
He  stands  there.  The  important  words  are  these  :  Whom  you  know  not. 
The  word  you  contrasts  John's  hearers,  who  are  still  ignorant,  with  John 
himself,  who  already  knows.  This  expression  necessarily  assumes  that, 
at  the  time  when  the  forerunner  was  speaking,  the  baptism  of  Jesus 
was  already  an  accomplished  fact.  For  it  was  by  means  of  that  ceremony 
that,  in  conformity  with  the  divine  promise  (ver.  33),  the  person  of  the 
Messiah  was  to  have  been  pointed  out  to  him.  In  w.  31  and  33,  He  Him- 
self affirms  that,  up  to  the  moment  of  the  baptism,  he  did  not  know  Him. 
It  is  impossible,  then,  to  place  the  baptism  of  Jesus,  with  Olshauscn  and 
Hengstenberg,  on  this  same  day  or  the  next,  with  Baumlein,  between  ver. 
28  and  ver.  29,  or,  with  Ewald,  between  ver.  31  and  ver.  32.  Moreover, 
this  testimony,  whatever  Weiss  may  say  of  it,  is  wholly  different  from  the 
preachings  of  John  which  are  reported  in  the  Synoptics,  and  which  had 
preceded  the  baptism  of  Jesus.  The  very  terms  which  the  forerunner 
here  employs  contain  a  very  clear  allusion  to  previous  declarations  in 
which  he  had  announced  a  personage  who  was  to  follow  him;  this 
is  especially  evident  if  we  read  6  before  bwiau  fiov  ipxoftevog,  "the 
one  coming  after  me  Avhom  I  have  announced  to  you."  This  testi- 
mony has  an  altogether  new  character :  "  The  Messiah  is  present, 
and  I  know  him."  This  is  the  first  declaration  which  refers  person- 
ally to  Jesus;  it  is  for  his  hearers  the  true  starting-point  of  faith  in 
Him.  The  Avords  it  is  he  (avroq  eanv),  omitted  by  the  Alexandrian  author- 
ities, sometimes  omitted  and  sometimes  read  by  Origen,  are  not  indis- 
pensable, and  may  have  been  added  either  by  copyists  who  wrongly  iden- 
tified this  testimony  with  that  of  ver.  15  (otrof  f]v),  or  by  others  who  wished 
to  bring  out  better  the  allusion  to  the  previous  testimonies  related  by  the 
Synoptics. 

It  is  otherwise  with  the  words,  who  was  before  me,  which  the  Alexandrian 
authorities,  Origen  and  the  Curetonian  Syriac  omit,  but  which  15  Mjj.  and 
the  two  ancient  versions,  Itala  and  Peschito,  read.  The  relation  between 
this  testimony  and  that  of  ver.  30,  which  will  follow,  renders  these  words 
indispensable  in  ver.  27.  For  in  ver.  30,  John  reproduces  expressly  ("  he 
it  is  of  ivhom  I  said  [yesterday]  "),  the  testimony  of  ver.  27.  and  not,  as  is 
imagined,  that  of  ver.  15,  which  is  itself  only  a  quotation  of  our  ver.  30 
(sec  on  ver.  15).  The  first  day,  John  uttered,  without  yet  designating  Jesus, 
the  declaration  of  vv.  26,  27  ;  the  second  day,  he  repeated  it,  as  it  is  related 
in  ver.  30,  this  time  applying  it  to  Jesus  as  present.  Gcss  rightly  says,  "  If 
the  shorter  reading  of  ver.  27  were  the  true  one,  the  evangelist  would  refer 
in  ver.  30  to  a  fact  which  had  not  been  related  by  him  "  (i.  p.  345).    These 


chap.  i.  28.  309 

words  :  who  was  before  me,  are,  in  ver.  27,  a  sort  of  parenthesis  inserted  by 
the  forerunner:  "Come  after  me?  Yes,  and  yet  in  reality,  my  prede- 
cessor !  "  (See  on  ver.  15).  By  the  expression  "  to  loose  the  latchet  of 
the  sandals,"  John  means  to  designate  the  humble  office  of  a  slave.  On 
the  pleonasm  of  ov  and  avrov  Baumlein  rightly  says:  "imitation  of  the 
Hebrew  construction."  Philologues  discuss  the  question  whether  the 
form  agios  wa  implies  a  weakening  of  the  sense  of  the  conjunction  Iva, 
which  becomes  here,  according  to  some,  a  simple  paraphrase  of  the  in- 
finitive {worthy  to  loose),  so  Baumlein,  or  whether  this  conjunction  always 
retains  the  idea  of  purpose  (Meyer).  Baumlein  rests  upon  the  later  Greek 
usage  and  on  the  vd  of  the  modern  Greek,  which,  with  the  verb  in  the 
subjunctive  mood,  supplies  the  place  of  the  infinitive.  Nevertheless,  we 
hold,  with  Meyer,  that  the  idea  of  purpose  is  never  altogether  lost  in  the 
iva  of  the  New  Testament ;  he  who  is  worthy  of  doing  a  thing,  is,  as  it 
were,  intended  to  do  it. 

Ver.  28.  "  These  things  were  done  at  Bethany?  beyond  the  Jordon,2  where 
John  was  baptizing."  The  notice  of  ver.  28  is  certainly  not  suggested  to 
John  by  a  geographical  interest ;  it  is  inspired  by  the  solemnity  of  this 
whole  scene,  and  by  the  extraordinary  gravity  of  this  official  testimony 
given  in  presence  of  the  representatives  of  the  Sanhedrim  as  well  as  of  the 
entire  nation.  It  was,  indeed,  to  this  declaration  that  the  expression  of 
the  Prologue  applied :  "  in  order  that  all  might  believe  through  him."  If  the 
people  had  been  ready  for  faith,  this  testimony  coming  from  such  lips, 
would  have  been  enough  to  make  the  divine  fire  break  forth  in  Israel. — 
As  for  the  two  readings  Bethany  and  Bethabara,  Origen  relates  that  nearly 
all  the  ancient  MSS.  read  Bethany,  but  that,  having  sought  for  a  place  of 
this  name  on  the  banks  of  the  Jordan,  he  had  not  found  it,  while  a  place 
was  pointed  out  called  Bethabara  (comp.  Judg.  vii.  24),  where  tra- 
dition alleged  that  John  had  baptized.  It  is,  therefore,  certain  that  the 
reading  Bethabara  was  substituted  for  the  primitive  reading  Bethany  in>a 
certain  number  of  documents,  and  that  it  was  under  the  influence  of  Origen ; 
as  the  Roman  war  had  caused  a  large  number  of  ancient  places  to  disap- 
pear even  as  to  their  names,  we  may  easily  understand  the  disappearance 
of  Bethany  at  the  time  of  Origen.  We  must,  therefore,  conclude  from 
the  text  which  is  established  by  evidence,  that  there  existed  in  the  time  of 
Jesus,  in  the  vicinity  of  the  Jordan,  a  place  by  the  name  of  Bethany,  which 
was  consequently  different  from  the  city  of  this  name  near  Jerusalem.  As 
there  were  two  Bethlehems,  two  Antiochs,  two  Ramas,  two  Canas,  why 
should  there  not  have  been,  also,  two  Bethanies?  Perhaps  this  name  had, 
in  the  two  cases,  different  etymologies.  Bethany  may  signify,  indeed,  either 
place  of  dates,  or  place  of  poverty,  etc.,  a  meaning  which  suits  Bethany 
near  Jerusalem;  or  place  of  the  ferry-boat  (Beth-Onijah),  a  meaning  which 
would  well  suit  the  Bethany  which  is  here  in  question.3 

1  The  reading  Br)0avia  is  found   in  almost  B>)0ajSapa. 

all  the  Mjj.;  the  large  part  of  the  Mnn. ;  It.;  2  Ji,  Syr""  add  iroray.ov  (the   river),  after 

Vg. ;   Cop.;   SyrKh,  etc.    Only  the  Mjj.  K  Tb  lop&avcv. 

VAII;  some  Mnn. ;  Syr0"  read,  with  T.  R.,  *  Lieutenant  Conder,  in  one  of  his  reports 


310  FIKST  PART. 


II.  Second  Testimony:  vv.  29-34. 

How  can  we  comprehend  the  fact  that  the  deputies  of  the  Sanhedrim 
left  John  without  asking  him  who  the  person  was  of  whom  he  intended 
to  speak  ?  Either  they  did  not  care  to  know,  or  they  affected  to  despise 
the  declaration  of  the  one  who  spoke  to  them  in  this  way.  In  hoth  cases, 
here  is  their  first  positive  act  of  unbelief.  After  their  departure,  the  fore- 
runner remained  with  his  disciples  and  the  multitude  who  had  been  pres- 
ent at  this  scene ;  and  from  the  next  day  his  testimony  assumed  a  still 
more  precise  character.  He  no  longer  merely  said,  "He  is  there,"  but 
seeing  Jesus  approaching  him,  he  cries  out :  "  There  He  is."  He  charac- 
terizes first  the  work  (ver.  29),  then  the  person  of  Christ  (ver.  30) ;  after- 
wards, he  relates  how  he  attained  the  knowledge  of  Him,  and  on  what 
foundation  the  testimony  which  He  gives  to  Him  rests  (vv.  31-33) ;  finally, 
he  sets  forth  the  importance  which  the  act  that  he  has  just  performed  in 
disburdening  himself  of  such  a  message  in  their  presence  has  for  his 
hearers  (ver.  34). 

Ver.  29.  "  The  next  day  he 1  sees  Jesus  coming  to  him,  and  he  says :  Behold 
the  Lamb  of  God  who  takes  away  the  sin  of  the  world."  The  very  next  day 
after  the  day  when  John  had  proclaimed  the  presence  of  the  Messiah  in 
the  midst  of  the  people,  Jesus  approaches  His  forerunner,  who  recognizes 
Him  and  declares  Him  to  be  the  Messiah.  The  words,  coming  to  Him, 
have  troubled  the  interpreters.  Some  have  understood  that  He  came  to 
be  baptized,  which  is  impossible,  since  the  following  verses  (31-33),  and  even 
ver.  26,  imply  that  the  baptism  was  already  accomplished.  Baur  thinks 
that  Jesus  came  to  John  for  the  purpose  of  receiving  his  testimony,  and 
he,  of  course,  finds  in  this  fact,  thus  understood,  a  proof  of  the  purely 
ideal  character  of  the  narrative.  But  this  detail  implies  simply  that 
Jesus,  after  having  been  baptized,  had,  previously  to  this  meeting,  sepa- 
rated Himself  from  John  for  a  certain  time,  and  that  after  this  interval 
He,  on  this  very  day,  returned  to  the  presence  of  His  forerunner,  hoping 
to  find  in  His  presence  those  whom  God  should  give  to  Him  in  order  to 
begin  His  work.  And  we  know,  in  fact,  from  the  Synoptical  account,  that 
Jesus,  after  His  baptism,  had  withdrawn  into  the  solitude  of  the  desert, 
where  He  had  passed  several  weeks ;  it  was  now  the  moment,  therefore, 
when  He  reappeared  to  take  up  His  work  as  Redeemer.  Nothing  is  more 
natural  than  that,  with  this  design,  He  should  return  to  the  presence  of 
John.  Was  not  he  the  one  who  had  been  sent  to  open  the  way  for  Him 
to  Israel?  Was  it  not  at  his  hands  that  He  could  hope  to  receive  the  in- 
struments which  were  indispensable  to  Him  for  the  accomplishment  of 

on  the  discoveries  of  the  English  expedition  are  omitted  in  a  large  number  of  Mjj.  and 

in  Palestine,  thinks  he  has  proved  the  exist-  Mnn.,  both  Alexandrian  and  Byzantine,  and 

enee,  on  the  east  of  the  Jordan,  of  a  district  in  several  Vss.  are  one  of  those  additions,  es- 

named  Bethany,  which  already  bore  this  name  peoially  frequent  in  the  Byzantine  text,  which 

in  the  time  ol  Eusebius,  and  which,  accord-  were  introduced  by  the  necessities  of  reading 

ing  to  Ptolemy,  extended  even  to  the  Jordan.  in  public  worship, 
1  The  words  o  Iuwyqs  of  the  T.  R.,  which 


ciiap.  i.  29.  311 

His  task?  Jesus  Himself  (x.  3)  designates  John  as  the  porter  who  opens 
to  the  Shepherd  the  door  of  the  sheepfold,  so  that  He  does  not  have  to 
climb  over  the  wall  of  the  inclosure  like  the  robber,  but  can  enter  without 
violence  into  the  sheepfold.  Liicke  also  places  this  return  of  Jesus  in 
connection  with  the  narrative  of  the  temptation. 

We  may  be  surprised  that  for  the  purpose  of  designating  Jesus  as  the 
Messiah  John  does  not  employ  one  of  the  titles  which  were  commonly 
used  for  this  end  :  Christ,  Son  of  God,  or  King  of  Israel.  The  term  Lamb 
of  God  is  so  original  that,  if  it  is  historical,  it  must  have  its  ground  in 
some  particular  impression  which  the  Baptist  had  received  at  the  time 
of  his  previous  meeting  with  Jesus.  And  indeed,  we  must  remember  that 
when  an  Israelite  came  to  have  himself  baptized  by  John,  he  began  by 
making  confession  of  his  sins  (Matt.  iii.  6  ;  Mk.  i.  5).  Jesus  could  not  have 
dispensed  with  this  preparatory  act  without  arrogating  to  Himself  from 
the  first  an  exceptional  position,  and  nothing  was  farther  from  His 
thought  than  this  :  He  wished  to  "  fulfill  all  righteousness  "  (Matt.  iii.  15). 
What,  then,  could  His  confession  be  ?  Undoubtedly  a  collective  confession, 
analogous  to  that  of  Daniel  (Dan.  ix.),  or  that  of  Nehemiah  (Neh.  ix.),  a 
representation  of  the  sin  of  Israel  and  of  the  world,  as  it  could  be  traced 
by  the  pure  being  who  was  in  communion  with  the  perfectly  holy  God, 
and  at  the  same  time  the  tenderly  loving  being,  who,  instead  of  judging 
His  brethren,  consecrated  Himself  to  the  work  of  saving  them.  If,  as  we 
cannot  doubt,  this  was  the  spirit  in  which  Jesus  spoke  and  perhaps  prayed 
at  that  moment,  we  may  understand  that  the  expression  which  the  fore- 
runner uses  here  to  designate  Him,  is  indeed  the  reflection  of  what  he 
had  experienced  when  hearing  and  seeing  this  unique  man,  who,  by  His 
tender  sympathy  and  His  intercession,  took  upon  Himself  the  burden  of 
the  sin  of  the  world.  On  the  other  hand,  in  order  that  the  title  of  which 
the  Baptist  made  use  might  be  intelligible  for  his  hearers,  it  was  indispens- 
able that  it  should  connect  itself  with  some  well-known  word  or  some 
well-known  fact  of  the  Old  Covenant,  which  was  generally  referred  to  the 
Messiah.  This  is  implied  by  the  article  6,  the,  before  the  term  Lamb  of 
God,  an  article  which  signifies  the  Lamb  known  and  expected  by  the 
hearers.  The  thought  which  presents  itself  most  naturally  to  the  mind 
is  that  of  seeing  here  an  allusion  to  the  Servant  of  the  Lord  described  in 
Is.  I  iii.,  under  the  figure  of  a  lamb  which  allows  itself  "to  be  led  to  the 
slaughter  without  opening  its  mouth."  On  the  preceding  day,  the  Baptist 
had  already  appealed  to  a  saying  of  the  same  prophet  (Is.  xl.  3).  Before 
the  polemic  against  the  Christians  had  driven  the  Jewish  interpreters  to 
another  explanation,  they  did  not  hesitate  to  apply  that  sublime  repre- 
sentation (Is.  Iii.  13-liii.  12)  to  the  Messiah.  Abarbanel  says  expressly: 
"  Jonathan,  the  son  of  Usiel,  referred  this  prophecy  to  the  Messiah  who 
was  to  come,  and  this  is  also  the  opinion  of  our  sages  of  blessed  memory." 
(See  Eisenmenger,  Entdeckt,  Judenth,  II.  Th.  p.  758 ;  Liicke,  I.  p.  40G).1 

'Comp.  Wunsche,  die  Leiden  des  Messina,  Is.  Iii.  13—1  iii.  12,  Zech.  ix.  9  {.lowly,  riding 
1870,  p.  55  If.  By  a  multitude  of  Rabbinical  upon  an  ass),  and  xii  10  ("on  me  whom  they 
sayings,  he  furnishes  proof  that  the  passages       pierced  "),  were  always  and  unanimously  re- 


312  FIRST   PART. 

We  need  not  here  prove  the  truth  of  this  explanation  of  Is.  liii.  and  the 
insoluble  difficulties  in  which  every  contrary  interpretation  is  involved. 
The  fact  is  sufficient  for  us  that  it  was  the  prevalent  one  among  the 
ancient  Jews.  From  this  it  follows  that  the  allusion  of  John  the  Baptist 
could  be  easily  understood  by  the  -people  who  were  present.  Some 
interpreters  have  claimed  that  the  term,  Lamb,  represents,  in  the  mouth 
of  the  forerunner  as  well  as  in  the  book  of  Isaiah,  only  the  meekness  and 
patience  of  the  just  one  suffering  for  the  cause  of  God.  Thus  Gabler : 
"Here  is  the  man  full  of  meekness  who  will  support  patiently  the  evils 
which  human  perversity  shall  occasion  him;"  and  Kuinoel:  "  Here  is 
the  innocent  and  pious  being  who  will  take  away  wickedness  from  the 
earth."  But  these  explanations  do  not  account  for  the  article  <5,  the  well- 
known,  expected,  Lamb,  and  they  entirely  efface  the  manifest  relation 
which  the  text  establishes  between  the  figure  of  lamb  and  the  act  of  taking 
away  sin.  Weiss  explains,  almost  as  the  preceding  writers  do,  by  empha- 
sizing the  allusion  to  Is.  liii.  7,  but  without  finding  here  the  least  notion 
of  sacrifice.  This  last  view  seems  to. us  not  defensible.  The  idea  of  sac- 
rifice is  at  the  foundation  of  the  whole  passage  Is.  liii. ;  comp.  especially, 
vv.  10-12:  "When  his  soul  shall  have  offered  the  expiatory  sacrifice 
ascham),"  and :  "  He  shall  bear  their  iniquities,"  words  to  which  precisely 
John  the  Baptist  alludes  in  these  last  words :  "  who  lakes  away  the  sin  of 
tlie  world."  The  Lamb  of  God  designates  Jesus,  therefore,  as  realizing  the 
type  of  the  Servant  of  Jehovah,  Is.  liii.,  charged  with  delivering  the  world 
from  sin  by  His  sacrifice.  Some  interpreters,  especially  Grotius,  Lampe, 
Luthardt  and  Hofmann,  believe  that  the  Baptist  is  thinking  only  of  the 
sacrifices  of  the  Old  Covenant  in  which  the  lamb  was  used  as  a  victim, 
specially  of  that  of  the  Paschal  lamb.  It  is,  indeed,  indisputable  that, 
among  the  clean  animals  used  as  victims,  the  lamb  was  the  one  which, 
by  its  character  of  innocence  and  mildness,  presented  the  emblem  most 
suited  to  the  character  of  the  Messiah  as  John  the  Baptist  here  describes 
Him  (comp.  Lev.  iv.  32 ;  v.  6 ;  xiv.  12 ;  Num.  vi.  12),  and  that,  in  particular,  the 
sacrifice  of  the  Paschal  lamb  really  possessed  an  expiatory  value  (comp. 
Ex.  xii.  13).  It  appears  to  me  indubitable,  therefore,  notwithstanding  all 
that  Weiss  and  Keil  still  say,  that,  in  expressing  himself  as  he  does  here,  the 
forerunner  is  thinking  of  the  part  of  the  lamb,  not  in  the  daily  Jewish 
worship,  but  in  the  Paschal  feast.  And  this  allusion  seems  to  me  to  be 
perfectly  reconcilable  with  the  reference  to  that  saying  of  Is.  liii.  since  in 
this  chapter  .Isaiah  represents  the  Servant  of  the  Lord  precisely  under  the 

ferred  to  the  Messiah  and  His  expiatory  suf-  Moses,  written  probably  at  the  time  of  Jesus' 

ferings.     The  very  attempt  to   distinguish  childhood,  the  author   also    represents   the- 

between  two  Messianic  personages,  the  one  Messiah  as  passing  through  death  with  all 

the  son  of  Joseph,  or  of  Ephraim  who  had  the  mankind  during  the  space  of  eight  days,  and 

lot  of  suffering,  and  the  other  the  xon  ofJudah,  then  returning  to  life  with  the  elect  and 

to  whom  is  ascribed  the  glory,  is  only  a  later  founding    His   Kingdom.    The  idea  of  the 

endeavor  (from  the  second  century,  comp.  death  of  the  Messiah  was,  therefore,  by  no 

Wunsche,  p.  10U)  to  reconcile  this  undisputed  means    strange    to    the    popular    Israelitish 

interpretation  with  the  idea  of  the  glorious  opinion  at  the  time  when  John  the  Baptist 

Messiah.     In  the    book,  The  assumption  of  spoke. 


chap.  i.  29.  313 

figure  of  the  lamb  sacrificed  as  an  expiatory  and  delivering  victim.  The 
complement  deov,  of  God,  is  the  genitive  of  possession,  and  at  the  same 
time  of  origin.  In  this  sacrifice,  indeed,  it  is  not  man  who  offers  and 
slays,  it  is  God  who  gives,  and  gives  of  His  own.  Comp.  1  Pet.  i.  19,  20; 
Rom.  viii.  32.  It  is  remarkable  that  this  title  of  lamb,  under  which  the 
evangelist  learned  to  know  Jesus  for  the  first  time,  is  that  by  means  of 
which  the  Saviour  is  by  preference  designated  in  the  Apocalypse.  The 
chord  which  had  vibrated,  at  this  decisive  hour,  in  the  deepest  part  of 
John's  heart  resounded  within  him  even  to  his  latest  breath. 

Exegetes  are  not  agreed  as  to  the  sense  which  the  word  alpuv,  who  takes 
away,  has  here.  The  verb  alpeiv  sometimes  signifies  to  raise  a  thing  from  the 
ground,  to  lift  it,  sometimes  to  take  it  away,  to  carry  it  away.  For  the  first 
sense,  comp.  viii.  29  (stones) ;  Matt.  xi.  29  (the  yoke) :  xvi.  24  (the  cross). 
For  the  second :  John  xi.  39,  48,  xv.  2,  xvii.  15,  etc.,  and  especially  1  John 
iii.  5 :  "Jesus  Christ  appeared  to  take  away  our  sins."  The  second  sense 
would  lead  rather  to  the  idea  of  the  destruction  of  sin ;  the  first,  to  that 
of  expiation,  as  in  some  expressions  of  the-  fifty-third  chapter  of  Isaiah; 
But  if  John  had  thought  especially  of  expiation,  he  would  probably  have 
employed  the  term  ftacTa&iv,  to  bear,  which  the  LXX.  used  in  the  words 
quoted  from  Is.  liii.  He  is  probably,  therefore,  thinking  of  the  taking 
away  of  sin.  Let  us  not  forget,  however,  that,  in  accordance  with  Is.  liii. 
and  the  Israelitish  worship  in  general,  this  end  cannot  be  attained  except 
by  means  of  expiation.  In  order  to  take  away  sin,  it  was  necessary  that 
Christ  should  begin  by  taking  upon  Himself  the  burden  of  it,  to  the  end 
that  he  might  be  able  afterwards  to  remove  it  by  the  work  of  sanctifica- 
tion.  The  idea  of  removing  includes,  therefore,  implicitly  that  of  bearing. 
The  present  participle  alpuv  might  be  referred  to  the  idea  of  the  mission  of 
Jesus.  But  it  is  more  simple  to  see  in  it  an  historical  present ;  since  the 
first  act  of  His  ministry,  Jesus  has  labored  for  the  taking  away  of  sin  on 
earth. 

The  burden  to  be  taken  away  is  designated  in  a  grand  and  sublime  way  : 
the  sin  of  the  world.  This  substantive  in  the  singular  presents  the  sinful 
error  of  humanity  in  its  profound  unity.  It  is  sin  in  the  mass,  in  which  all 
the  sins  of  all  the  sinners  of  the  world  are  comprehended.  Do  they  not 
all  spring  from  the  same  root?  We  must  guard  against  understanding  by 
d/iapria,  as  de  Wette  does,  the  penalty  of  sin.  This  idea,  "the  sin  of  the 
world,"  has  been  judged  too  universal  for  the  Baptist's  mouth.  So  Weiss 
ascribes  it  solely  to  the  evangelist.  Rcnss  says  :  "  We  have  here  an  essen- 
tially Christian  declaration."  But  in  Is.  Hi.  13-15,  it  was  already  said  that 
the  sight  of  the  suffering  Servant  would  startle  many  peoples  (rabbzm)  and 
would  strike  their  kings  with  astonishment.  And  who,  then,  wore  these 
many  individuals  (rabbim)  whom,  according  to  liii.  11,  this  same  Servant  was 
to  justify,  after  Israel  had  rejected  Him  (ver.  1)?  Comp.  also  the  wonder- 
ful prophecy,  Is.  xix.  24,  25,  where  the  Assyrians,  the  Egyptians  and  Israel 
are  represented  as  forming  the  three  parts,  perfectly  equal  in  dignity,  of 
the  kingdom  of  God.  Could  Isaiah  have  surpassed  in  clearness  of  vision 
the  Baptist,  who  was  not  only  a  prophet,  but  the  greatest  of  the  prophets'? 


314  FIRST  PART. 

This  expression  the  world  says  no  more,  in  reality,  than  that  threatening 
or  promise  which  the  Synoptics  put  into  the  mouth  of  the  forerunner : 
"  Even  of  these  stones  God  will  raise  up  children  to  Abraham."  Let  us 
also  recall  that  first  word  of  the  Lord  to  Abraham  (Gen.  xii.  3)  :  "  All  the 
families  of  the  earth  shall  be  blessed  (or  shall  bless  themselves)  in  thee." 

The  forerunner,  after  having  described  the  work  of  Jesus,  designates 
Him  Himself  as  the  one  to  whom,  notwithstanding  His  humble  ap- 
pearance, his  declaration  of  the  day  before  applies : 

Ver.  30.  "  This  is  he '  concerning  whom  I  said :  After  me  cometh  a  man  who 
has  preceded  me,  because  he  ivas  before  me."  This  saying,  while  applying  to 
Jesus  as  present  (this  is  he)  the  testimony  uttered  on  the  preceding  day  in 
His  absence  (vv.  26,  27),  is  designed  to  solve  the  enigma  which  that  decla- 
ration contained :  "Hewho/o//o««  me  was  before  me."  The  last  clause 
explains  it ;  see  on  ver.  15.  It  is  difficult  to  decide  between  the  two  read- 
ings TTEfji,  in  respect  to,  and  vnip,  on  behalf  of,  both  of  which  are  suitable.  The 
word  avrjp  (a  man  in  the  strength  of  his  age)  which  is  not  found  in  the 
quotation  of  this  saying  in  ver.  15,  is  suggested  to  the  forerunner  by  the 
sight  of  Jesus  present  before  his  eyes.  Liicke,  Meyer,  Keil  think  that  in  ver. 
30  the  Baptist  refers,  not  to  the  testimony  of  the  day  before  (vv.  26,  27), 
but  to  some  other  previous  saying  which  is  not  mentioned,  either  in  our 
Gospel  or  in  the  Synoptics.  They  are  condemned  to  this  absurd  supposi- 
tion by  their  servile  dependence  on  the  Alexandrian  text,  which  in  ver. 
27  omitted  the  words  :  who  has  preceded  me.  Weiss  attempts  to  escape  this 
difficulty  by  making  the  formula  of  quotation  :  he  of  whom  I  said,  ver.  30, 
relate  simply  to  the  words' :  cometh  after  me,  and  not  to  those  which  follow, 
who  has  preceded  me,  an  unfortunate  expedient  which  cannot  satisfy  any 
one.  For  the  emphasis,  as  the  end  of  the  verse  shows,  is  precisely  on  the 
words  which  Weiss  thus  treats  as  insignificant.  The  systematic  partisans 
of  the  Alexandrian  text  must,  therefore,  bring  themselves  to  acknowledge, 
in  this  case  also,  that  that  text  is  no  more  infallible  than  the  Byzantine  or 
the  Greco-Latin. 

But  how  can  John  the  Baptist  have  the  boldness  to  give  such  a  testi- 
mony to  this  mere  Jew,  like  all  the  rest  whom  he  had  before  him  there, 
and  to  proclaim  Him  as  the  Redeemer  of  men,  the  being  whom  God  had 
drawn  forth  from  the  depth  of  eternal  existence  that  He  might  give  Him 
to  the  world?    He  explains  this  himself  in  vv.  31-33  : 

Ver.  31.  "  And  neither  did  I  know  him  ;  but  that  he  might  be  manifested  to 
Israel,  I  am  come  baptizing  with  water?  The  word  Kay6,  and  neither  I,  placed 
at  the  beginning  and  repeated,  as  it  is  in  ver.  33,  has  necessarily  an  espe- 
cial emphasis.  The  meaning  is  obvious :  he  has  just  said  to  his  hearers : 
"  He  whom  you  knoiv  not."  When,  therefore,  he  adds:  "And  neither  did 
I  know  him,"  it  is  clear  that  he  means:  "And  neither  did  I,  when  he 
came  to  present  himself  to  me  to  be  baptized,  know  him  any  more  than 
you  now  know  him."     Weiss  and  Keil  object  to  this  meaning,  that  it  can- 

> Instead  of  ittpi  (touching),  X  B  C  and  Orig.  »B  C  G  L  P  T»  A  Or.  reject  tw    before 

/twice)  read  vitip  (on  behalf  of ).  vSan. 


chap.  i.  30,  31.  315 

not  be  applied  to  the  two  nay6  of  vv.  33,  34.  We  shall  see  that  this  is  not 
correct.  According  to  these  interpreters  the  "and  /"signifies:  " /,  for 
my  part,  that  is,  according  to  my  mere  human  individuality,  and  inde- 
pendently of  the  divine  revelation."  But  it  is  this  meaning  which  is  in- 
applicable to  ver.  34 ;  and  besides,  it  is  very  far-fetched.  John  means :  I 
did  not  know  him  absolutely  when  he  came  to  present  himself  to  me  ;  I 
did  not  know,  therefore,  that  He  was  the  Messiah.  But  we  must  not  neg- 
lect to  draw  from  this  only  natural  meaning  the  important  consequence 
which  is  implied  in  it :  that  John  a  lso  did  not  know  Jesus  as  a  man,  as  the  Son 
of  Mary ;  for,  if  he  had  known  Him  as  such,  it  would  have  been  impossi- 
ble for  him  not  to  know  Him  also  as  the  Messiah.  He  could  not  be  ignor- 
ant of  the  circumstances  which  had  accompanied  his  own  birth  and  that 
of  Jesus.  If,  therefore,  he  did  not  know  Jesus  as  Messiah,  no  more  did  he 
know  Him  personally.  And  this  can  be  understood  :  having  lived  in  the 
wilderness  up  to  the  time  of  his  manifestation  to  Israel  (Luke  i.  80),  he 
might  indeed  have  heard  the  marvelous  circumstances  of  his  own  birth 
and  of  the  birth  of  the  Son  of  Mary  related  by  bis  parents,  but  without 
having  ever  seen  Him.  It  must  necessarily,  even,  have  been  so,  in  order 
to  his  not  recognizing  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  when  He  presented  Himself  to 
Him  for  baptism.  And  it  is  only  in  this  way  that  the  testimony  given  by 
him  to  Jesus  is  raised  above  all  suspicion  of  bias.  This  is  the  reason  why 
John  brings  out  this  circumstance  with  so  much  stress  by  the  three  suc- 
cessive myu.  Here  is  the  guarantee  of  the  truth  of  his  testimony.  But, 
in  this  case,  how  can  we  explain  the  word  which  John  addresses  to  Jesus 
in  the  narrative  of  Matthew  (iii.  14) :  "  I  have  need  to  be  baptized  of 
thee."  To  resolve  this  difficulty,  it  is  not  necessary  to  resort  to  the  expe- 
dient, which  was  found  already  in  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews  and  which 
Lucke  has  renewed, — that  of  placing  this  conversation  between  John  and 
Jesus  after  the  baptism  of  the  latter.  We  have  already  recalled  the  fact 
that,  according  to  Matt.  iii.  6  and  Mk.  i.  5,  the  baptism  of  John  was  pre- 
ceded, on  the  part  of  the  neophyte,  by  an  act  of  confession  of  sins.  The 
confession  which  the  forerunner  heard  proceeding  from  the  mouth  of 
Jesus  might  easily  convince  him  that  he  had  to  do  with  a  more  holy  being 
than  himself,  who  had  a  deep  sense  of  sin  and  condemned  it,  as  he  had 
never  felt  and  condemned  it  himself,  and  could  thus  extort  from  him  the 
exclamation  which  Matthew  relates.  Not  knowing  Jesus  personally,  John 
received  Him  as  he  did  every  other  Israelite ;  after  having  heard  Him 
speak  of  the  sin  of  the  world,  he  caught  sight  of  the  first  gleam  of  the 
truth  ;  finally,  the  scene  which  followed  completed  his  conviction. 

The  logical  connection  between  this  clause  and  the  following  one  is  this: 
"And  that  I  might  bring  to  an  end  that  ignorance  in  which  I  still  was, 
even  as  you  are  now,  is  the  very  reason  why  God  has  sent  me  to  baptize." 
The  Baptist's  ministry  had  undoubtedly  a  more  general  aim  :  to  prepare 
the  people  for  the  Kingdom  of  God  by  repentance,  or,  as  he  has  said  him- 
self in  ver.  22:  "to  make  straight  the  way  of  the  Lord."  But  he  makes 
prominent  here  only  that  which  forms  the  culminating  point  of  his  min- 
istry, the  testimony  borne  to  the  person  of  the  Messiah,  without  which  all 


316  FIRST   PART. 

his  labor  would  have  been  useless.  The  article  t£  before  idan  {the  water) 
appears  to  me  to  have  been  wrongly  rejected  by  the  Alexandrian  author- 
ities ;  there  is  something  dramatic  in  it :  "  I  am  come  to  baptize  with  that 
water  "  (pointing  to  the  Jordan).  Without  the  article,  there  would  be  a 
tacit  contrast  between  the  baptism  of  water  and  another  (that  of  the  Spirit), 
which  is  not  in  the  thought  of  the  context.  John  now  explains  how  that 
ignorance  ceased  for  him  on  the  occasion  of  the  baptism  which  he  began 
to  solemnize  by  the  command  of  God. 

Ver.  32.  " And  John  bore  witness  saying  :  I  have  seen  the  Spirit  descending 
as1  a  dove,  and  it  abode'*  upon  Him."  This  declaration  is  introduced  with 
a  peculiar  solemnity  by  the  words  :  "And  John  bore  witness."  Here,  indeed, 
is  the  decisive  act,  as  Hengstenberg  calls  it,  the  punctum  saliens  of  the 
entire  ministry  of  John  the  Baptist,  his  Messianic  testimony  properly  sO 
called.  With  what  sense  had  John  seen  ?  With  the  bodily  eye,  or  with  the 
inner  sense  ?  This  is  to  ask  whether  the  fact  mentioned  here  took  place 
only  in  the  spiritual  world,  or  also  in  the  external  world.  According  to 
the  narratives  of  Mark  (i.  10,  11),  and  of  Matthew  (iii.  1C,  17),  it  was  the 
object  of  the  perception  of  Jesus  only.  "And  behold,  the  heavens  were 
opened,  and  he  saw  the  Spirit  ..."  (Matt.) :  "  And  straightway  coming 
out  of  the  water  he  saw  ..."  (Mark).  In  Luke  the  narrative  is  com- 
pletely objective :  "  It  came  to  pass  that the  heaven  tvas  opened  " 

(iii.  21,  22).  But  the  narrative  in  Matthew  makes  the  Baptist  also  partici- 
pate in  this  heavenly  manifestation  by  the  form  of  the  declaration  of 
God  :  "  This  is  my  Son;  "  not  as  in  Mark  and  Luke  :  "  Thou  art  my  Son." 
The  divine  declaration  in  Matthew  addresses  itself,  therefore,  not  to  Jesus 
who  is  the  object,  but  to  him  who  is  the  witness  of  it,  namely,  John. 
Now,  if  it  was  perceived  simultaneously  by  Jesus  and  by  John,  it  must 
have  had  an  objective  reality,  as  the  narrative  of  Luke  says.  The  follow- 
ing is,  perhaps,  the  way  in  which  we  can  represent  to  ourselves  the  rela- 
tion between  the  perception  of  Jesus  and  that  of  John :  The  divine 
communication,  properly  so  called  (the  declaration  of  the  Father  and  the 
communication  of  the  Spirit),  was  given  from  God  to  Jesus,  and  the  latter 
had  knowledge  of  the  fact  at  once  by  the  impression  which  He  received, 
and  by  a  vision  which  rendered  it  sensible  to  him.  As  to  John,  he  was 
associated  in  the  perception  of  this  symbolic  manifestation,  and  thereby 
initiated  into  the  spiritual  fact,  of  which  it  was  as  if  the  covering.  Thus 
the  voice  which  said  to  Jesus  :  "  Thou  art  my  Son,"  sounded  within  him 
in  this  form  :  "  This  is  my  Son."  'Neander  cannot  admit  that  a  symbolic 
communication,  a  vision,  could  have  found  a  place  in  the  relation  be- 
tween Jesus  and  God.  But  this  rule  is  applicable  only  to  the  time  which 
followed  the  baptism.  It  has  been  wrongly  concluded  from  the 
expression,  I  have  seen,  that,  according  to  the  fourth  Gospel,  the 
vision  was  only  perceived  by  John,  to  the  exclusion  of  Jesus.  It  is 
forgotten  that  the  forerunner,  in  his  present  account,  has  no  other  aim 

'  Instead  of  ua-et  which  T.  R.  reads  with  8  2  K  reads  nevov  instead  of  c^etfef. 

Mjj.,  KABC  and  8  Mjj.  read  us. 


chap.  i.  32.  317 

but  to  justify  his  testimony.  For  this  purpose  he  does  not  have  to  speak 
of  anything  else  than  that  which  he  has  himself  seen.  This  is  the  reason 
why  he  relates  the  fact  of  the  baptism  only  from  the  point  of  view  of  his 
own  perception. 

In  the  fact  here  described,  we  must  distinguish  the  real  gift  made  to 
Jesus,  which  is  indicated  by  the  narrative  in  these  words  :  the  Spirit  de- 
scending and  abiding  upon  Him  ;  and  the  symbolic  representation  of  this 
gift  intended  for  the  consciousness  of  Christ  and  for  that  of  John :  the 
visible  form  of  the  dove.  The  heaven  as  we  behold  it  with  the  bodily  eye, 
is  the  emblem  of  the  state  perfect  in  holiness,  in  knowledge,  in  power,  in 
felicity.  It  is,  consequently,  in  the  Scriptures  the  symbol  of  the  place 
where  God  manifests  His  perfections,  in  all  their  splendor,  where  His 
glory  shines  forth  perfectly,  and  from  which  the  supernatural  revelations 
and  forces  proceed.  John  sees  descending  from  the  sky,  which  is  rent, 
a  luminous  form  like  a  dove,  which  rests  and  abides  upon  Jesus.  This 
symbol  is  nowhere  employed  in  the  Old  Testament  to  represent  the  Holy 
Spirit.  In  the  Syrian  religions,  the  dove  was  the  image  of  the  force  of 
nature  which  broods  over  all  beings.  But  this  analogy  is  too  remote  for 
the  explanation  of  our  passage.  The  words  of  Matt.  x.  16  :  "Be  ye  harm- 
less as  doves,"  have  no  direct  relation  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  We  find  some 
passages  in  the  Jewish  Rabbis,  where  the  Spirit  who  hovered  over  the 
waters  (Gen.  i.  3)  is  connected  with  the  Spirit  of  the  Messiah,  and  com- 
pared to  a  dove,  which  hovers  over  its  young  without  touching  them  (see 
Liicke,  p.  426).  Perhaps  this  comparison,  familiar  to  the  Jewish  mind,  is  that 
which  explains  for  us,  most  naturally,  the  present  form  of  the  divine  reve- 
lation. This  emblem  was  admirably  adapted  to  the  decisive  moment  of 
the  baptism  of  Jesus.  It  was  a  matter,  indeed,  of  nothing  less  than  the 
new  creation,  which  Avas  to  be  the  consummation  of  the  first  creation. 
Humanity  passed  at  that  instant  from  the  sphere  of  the  natural  or. psy- 
chical life  to  that  of  the  spiritual  life,  with  a  view  to  which  it  had  been 
created  at  the  first,  1  Cor.  xv.  46.  The  creative  Spirit  which  had  of  old 
brooded  with  His  life-giving  power  over  chaos,  to  draw  from  it  a  world  full 
of  order  and  harmony,  was  going,  as  if  by  a  new  incubation,  to  transform 
the  first  humanity  into  a  heavenly  humanity.  But  that  which  must  here 
be  observed  is  the  organic  form  which  the  luminous  apparition  assumes. 
An  organism  is  an  indivisible  whole.  At  Pentecost,  the  Spirit  descends 
in  the  form  of  "  cloven  tongues  (dtaftEpiCdfievai  yluaoat)  "  which  distribute 
themselves  among  the  believers.  This  is  the  true  symbol  of  the  way  in 
which  the  Holy  Spirit  dwells  in  the  Church,  distributing  to  each  one  His 
gifts  according  as  He  pleases  (1  Cor.  xii.  11).  But  at  the  baptism  of  Jesus, 
the  fact  is  another  and  the  emblem  is  different.  The  Spirit  descends 
upon  Christ  in  His  fullness.  "  God,"  it  is  said  in  iii.  34,  "gives  not  to  Him 
the  Spirit  by  measure."  Comp.  Is.  xi.  1,  2,  where  the  seven  forms  of  the 
Spirit,  enumerated  in  order  to  designate  His  fullness,  come  to  rest  upon 
the  Messiah.  We  must  notice,  finally,  the  term  to  abide,  which  is  a  pre- 
cise allusion  to  the  word  nu  in  this  passage  of  Isaiah  (xi.  2).  The 
prophets  received  occasional  inspirations :  the  hand  of  the  Lord  was  upon 


318  FIRST  PART. 

them;  then,  withdrawing  Himself,  the  Spirit  left  them  to  themselves.  It 
was  thus,  also,  with  John  the  Baptist.  But  Jesus  will  not  only  be  visited 
by  the  Spirit ;  the  Spirit  will  dwell  in  Him,  and  will  even  one  day  be 
poured  forth  from  Him,  as  if  from  His  source,  upon  believers ;  this  is  the 
reason  why  in  ver.  33  the  idea  of  abiding  is  placed  in  close  connection 
with  that  of  baptizing  with  the  Holy  Spii-it.  The  reading  cjoeI  emphasizes 
more  strongly  even  than  the  simple  <l>g  the  purely  symbolic  character  of 
the  luminous  appearance.  The  /ikvov  of  the  Sinaitic  MS.  is  a  correction 
arising  from  the  naTa(iaivov  which  precedes.  The  proposition  is  broken 
off  designedly  (nal  e/ielvev),  in  order  to  make  more  fully  apparent  the  idea 
of  abiding,  by  isolating  it  from  what  precedes.  Tbe  construction  of  the 
accusative  in'  abrdv,  upon  Him,  with  the  verb  of  rest  to  abide,  springs 
from  the  living  character  of  the  relation,  (comp.  ver.  1  and  18).  But  had 
John  the  Baptist  property  interpreted  the  vision  ?  Had  he  not  ascribed 
to  it  a  meaning  which  it  did  not  have?  This  last  possible  doubt  is 
answered  by  the  fact  related  in  the  following  verse. 

Ver.  33.  "And  neither  did  I  know  him;  but  he  who  sent  me,  to  baptize  with 
water,  he  said  to  me :  The  man  on  tohom  thou  sludt  see  the  Spirit  descend  and 
abide,  is  lie  who  baptizeth  with  the  Holy  Spirit."  Not  only  was  a  sign  given 
(ver.  32) ;  but  this  sign  was  that  which  had  been  promised,  and  the  mean- 
ing of  which  had  been  indicated  beforehand.  No  human  arbitrariness  can, 
therefore,  mingle  itself  with  this  testimony  which  John  renders  to  Jesus. 
Kay6  :  And  I  repeat  it  to  you :  When  He  presented  Himself,  I  did  not  know 
Him  any  more  than  you  now  know  Him.  I  have  then  placed  here  nothing 
of  my  own.  The  expression  6  Tri/i^ag,  He  who  sent  me,  has  something  solemn 
and  mysterious  in  it;  John  evidently  means  to  designate  thereby  God  Him- 
self who  had  spoken  to  him  in  the  desert  and  given  him  his  commission. 
This  commission  included:  1.  The  command  to  baptize;  2.  The  promise 
to  reveal  to  him  the  Messiah  on  the  occasion  of  the  baptism ;  3.  The  indi- 
cation of  the  sign  by  which  He  should  be  manifested  to  him ;  4.  The  com- 
mand to  bear  testimony  to  Him  in  Israel.  The  emphatic  resumption  of 
the  subject  by  the  pronoun  ekeivoc,  he,  with  its  meaning  which  is  so  emphatic 
in  John,  makes  prominent  this  idea :  That  everything  in  this  testimony 
proceeds  from  Jehovah,  and  Jehovah  only.  Weiss,  who  is  not  willing  to 
acknowledge  the  special  and  commonly  exclusive  sense  which  this  pronoun 
has  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  thinks  that  it  serves  here  to  place  God,  as  the 
more  remote  subject,  in  contrast  with  Jesus,  as  the  nearest  object.  But  to 
what  purpose  mark  a  contrast  between  Jesus  and  God  ?  The  pronoun 
indisputably  signifies:  "He  and  not  another."  The  sign  had  been 
announced  by  God  Himself.  The  words  e<p'  bv  av  (on  whom),  indicate  the 
most  unlimited  contingency  :  Whoever  he  may  be,  though  he  be  the  poor- 
est of  the  Israelites.  The  act  of  baptizing  with  the  Holy  Spirit  is  indicated 
here  as  the  peculiar  work  of  the  Messiah.  By  the  baptism  of  water, 
John  gives  to  the  repentant  sinner  the  pledge  of  pardon  and  the  promise 
of  sanctification ;  by  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  Messiah  realizes 
this  last  promise,  and  accomplishes  thereby  the  highest  destiny  of  the 
human  soul. 


chap.  i.  33.  319 

Tlie  Gift  made  to  Jesus  in  the  Baptism. 

Vt.  32,  33,  suggest  an  important  question:  Did  Jesus  really  receive  any- 
thing at  His  baptism?  Meyer  denies  this,  alleging  that  this  idea  has  no 
support  in  our  Gospel,  and  that,  if  the  Synoptics  say  more,  it  is  because 
they  contain  a  tradition  which  had  been  already  altered.  The  real  fact  was 
solely  the  vision  granted  to  John  in  view  of  the  testimony  which  he  was  to 
render  to  Jesus.  This  vision  was  transformed  by  tradition  into  the  event  related 
by  the  Synoptics.  The  idea  of  the  real  communication  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  Jesus 
would  be  incompatible  with  that  of  the  incarnation  of  the  Logos.  Liicke  and 
de  Wette  think,  also,  that  Jesus  received  nothing  new  at  that  moment.  John  was 
only  instructed,  by  means  of  the  vision,  as  to  a  permanent  fact  in  the  life  of  Jesus,  His 
communion  with  the  Holy  Spirit.  Neander,  Tholuck  and  Ebrard  think  that  there 
was  simply  progress  in  the  consciousness  which  Jesus  had  of  Himself.  Baumgarlen- 
Crusius,  Kahnis,  Luthardt,  Gess,  allow  a  real  communication,  but  only  with  refer- 
ence to  the  task  which  Jesus  had  to  fulfill,  that  of  His  own  ministry,  and  of  the 
communication  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  other  men.  The  opinion  of  Meyer,  as  well 
as  that  of  Liicke,  sacrifices  the  narrative  of  the  Synoptics,  and  even  that  of  John 
to  a  dogmatic  prejudice ;  for  John  saw  the  Spirit  not  only  abiding,  but  descending, 
and  this  last  feature  must  correspond  to  a  reality,  as  well  as  the  other.  The  view 
of  Neander  is  true,  but  inadequate.  There  was  certainly  wrought,  at  that  moment 
a  decided  advance  in  the  consciousness  of  Jesus,  as  is  indicated  by  the  fact  of  the 
divine  address:  Thou  art  my  Son  ;  but  the  symbol  of  the  descent  of  the  dove  must  also 
correspond  to  a  real  fact.  Finally,  the  view  which  admits  an  actual  gift,  but  only 
in  relation  to  the  public  activity  of  Jesus,  appears  to  me  superficial.  In  a  life  so 
completely  one  as  that  of  Jesus,  where  there  is  nothing  purely  ritual,  where  the 
external  is  always  the  manifestation  of  the  internal,  the  beginning  of  a  new  activity 
supposes  a  change  in  His  own  personal  life. 

When  we  lay  hold  of  the  idea  of  the  incarnation  with  the  force  with  which  it  is 
apprehended  and  presented  by  Paul  and  John  (see  ver.  14,  and  the  Appendix  to 
the  Prologue),  when  we  recognize  the  fact  that  the  Logos  divested  Himself  of  the 
divine  state,  and  that  He  entered  into  a  really  human  state,  in  order  to  accom- 
plish the  normal  development  originally  assigned  to  every  man,  there  is  nothing 
further  to  prevent  us  from  holding  that,  after  having  accomplished  the  task  of  the 
first  Adam  on  the  pathway  of  free  obedience,  He  should  have  seen  opening  before 
Him  the  sphere  of  the  higher  life  for  which  man  is  destined,  and  that,  as  the  first 
among  the  violent  who  take  the  kingdom  of  heaven  by  force,  He  should  have 
forced  the  entrance  into  it  for  Himself  and  for  all.  Undoubtedly,  His  entire 
existence  had  passed  on  under  the  constant  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  which  had 
presided  over  his  birth.  At  every  moment,  He  had  obeyed  this  divine  guide,  and 
each  time  this  docility  had  been  immediately  rewarded  by  a  new  impulse.  The 
vessel  was  filled  in  proportion  as  it  enlarged,  and  it  enlarged  in  proportion  as  it 
was  filled.  But  to  be  under  the  operation  of  the  Spirit  is  not  to  possess  the  Spirit 
(xiv.  17).  With  the  hour  of  the  baptism,  the  moment  came  when  the  previous 
development  was  to  be  transformed  into  the  definite  state,  that  of  the  perfect  stature 
(Eph.  iv.  13).  "  First,  *hat  which  is  psychical,"  says  Paul,  in  1  Cor.  xv.  46,  "  after- 
wards that  which  is  spiritual."  If  the  incarnation  is  a  verity,  this  law  must  apply 
to  the  development  of  Jesus,  as  much  as  to  that  of  every  other  man.  Till  then, 
the  Spirit  was  upon  Him  iff"  airo  [ro  xaidiop]  Luke  ii.  40;  He  increased,  under 


320  FIRST  PART. 

this  divine  influence,  in  wisdom  and  grace.  From  the  time  of  the  baptism,  the 
Spirit  becomes  the  principle  of  His  psychical  and  physical  activity,  of  His  whole 
personal  life ;  He  can  begin  to  be  called  Lord-Spirit  (2  Cor.  iii.  17,  18) ;  life-giving 
Spirit  (1  Cor.  xv.  45). 

The  baptism,  therefore,  constitutes  in  His  interior  life  as  decisive  a  crisis  as 
does  the  ascension  in  His  external  state.  The  open  heaven  represents  His  initia- 
tion into  the  consciousness  of  God  and  of  His  designs.  The  voice :  Thou  art  my 
Son,  indicates  the  revelation  to  His  inmost  consciousness  of  His  personal  relation 
with  God,  of  His  eternal  dignity  as  Son,  and,  at  the  same  time,  of  the  boundless- 
ness of  divine  love  towards  Him,  and  towards  humanity  on  which  such  a  gift  is 
bestowed.  He  fully  apprehends  the  name  of  Father  as  applied  to  God,  and  can 
proclaim  it  to  the  world.  The  Holy  Spirit  becomes  His  personal  life,  makes  Him 
the  principle  and  source  of  life  for  all  men.  Nevertheless,  His  glorification  is 
not  yet ;  the  natural  life,  whether  psychical  or  physical,  still  exists  in  Him,  as 
such.  It  is  after  the  ascension  only  that  His  soul  and  body  will  be  completely 
spiritualized  (auua  TrvevfiaTinov,  1  Cor.  xv.  44). 

But,  it  is  asked,  does  not  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  form  a  needless  repetition 
of  the  miraculous  birth  ?  By  no  means ;  for  in  this  latter  event  the  Holy  Spirit 
acts  only  as  a  life-giving  force  in  the  stead  and  place  of  the  paternal  principle. 
He  wakens  into  the  activity  of  life  the  germ  of  a  human  existence  deposited  in 
the  womb  of  Mary,  the  organ  prepared  for  the  Logos  that  He  may  realize  there  a 
human  development ;  in  the  same  way  as,  on  the  day  of  creation,  the  soul  of  the 
first  man,  breath  of  the  creating  God,  came  to  dwell  in  the  bodily  organ  prepared 
for  its  abode  and  for  its  earthly  activity  (Gen.  ii.  7). 

Some  modern  theologians,  in  imitation  of  some  of  the  Fathers,  think  that  the 
Logos  is  confounded  by  John  with  the  Spirit.  But  undoubtedly  every  one  will 
acknowledge  the  truth  of  this  remark  of  Liicke  :  "  No  more  could  we  say,  on  the 
one  hand,  '  The  Spirit  was  made  flesh,'  than  we  could  say,  on  the  other,  '  I  have 
seen  the  Logos  descend  upon  Jesus.' "  The  distinction  between  the  Logos  and 
the  Spirit,  scrupulously  observed  by  John,  even  in  chaps,  xiv.-xvi.,  where  Ileuss 
thinks  it  is  sometimes  wholly  effaced  (Hist,  dc  la  ih.  chret.  ii.,  p.  533  f.),  is  the 
following:  The  Logos  is  the  principle  of  objective  revelation,  and,  through  his 
incarnation,  the  culminating  point  of  that  revelation,  while  the  Spirit  is  the  prin- 
ciple acting  internally  by  which  we  assimilate  to  ourselves  that  revelation  subject- 
ively. Hence  it  results  that,  without  the  Spirit,  the  revelation  remains  for  us  a 
dead  letter,  and  Jesus  a  simple  historical  personage  with  whom  we  do  not  enter 
into  any  communion.  It  is  by  the  Spirit  alone  that  we  appropriate  to  ourselves 
the  revelation  contained  in  the  word  and  person  of  Jesus.  Thus,  from  the  time 
when  the  Spirit  begins  to  do  His  work  in  us,  it  is  Jesus  Himself  who  begins  to 
live  within  us.  As,  through  the  Spirit,  Jesus  lived  on  earth  by  the  Father,  so, 
through  the  Spirit,  the  believer  lives  by  Jesus  (vi.  57).  This  distinction  of 
offices  between  Christ  and  the  Spirit  is  steadily  maintained  throughout  our 
whole  Gospel.1 

This  solemn  testimony  being  given,  the  forerunner  expresses  the  feeling 
of  satisfaction  with  which  this  grand  task  accomplished  inspires  him,  yet 

i  Hilgenfeld,  identifying  the  descent  of  the  ing  to  the  Valentinians),  finds  here  a  trace  of 
Holy  Spirit  at  the  baptism  with  the  coming  Gnosticism.  This  idea  has  not  the  least  sup- 
of  the  .<Eon  Logos  into  the  man  Jesus  (accord-       port  in  the  text. 


chap.  i.  34-36.  321 

so  as,  at  the  same  time,  to  make  his  hearers  understand  that  their  own 
task  is  beginning. 

Ver.  34.  "  And  I  have  seen  and  have  borne  witness  that  this  is  the  Son  of 
God."  l  The  £}<J,  I,  in  nayu,  distinguishes,  as  in  vv.  31,  33,  him  who  alone 
was  to  sec,  and  who  also  (nai)  has  seen,  from  all  the  others  who  were  to 
believe  on  the  ground  of  his  testimony.  The  perfects  :  I  have  seen  and  I 
have  testified  indicate  facts  accomplished  once  for  all  and  abiding  for  the 
future.  The  on,  that,  depends  on  the  second  verb  only ;  the  verb  to  see  is 
without  an  object ;  it  is  the  act  which  is  of  importance,  as  the  condition  of 
that  of  testifying.  The  term  Son  of  God  characterizes  a  being  as  a  repre- 
sentative of  the  divinity  in  a  particular  function.  It  is  applied  in  the  Old 
Testament  to  angels,  to  judges,  to  kings,  and,  finally,  to  the  Messiah  : 
"  Thou  art  my  Son;  to-day  have  I  begotten  thee  "  (Ps.  ii.  7,  12) ;  but  there  is 
a  difference  in  the  mode  of  representation  in  each  case.  An  ambassador 
represents  his  sovereign,  but  otherwise  than  does  the  son  of  the  latter,  for 
the  son,  while  representing  the  sovereign,  represents  in  him  also  his 
father.  Ver.  30  proves  that  John  the  Baptist  takes  the  word  Son  here  in 
the  loftiest  sense  which  can  be  attached  to  it ;  the  being  whose  existence 
is  united  to  that  of  God  by  an  incomparable  bond,  and  who  comes  to 
fulfill  here  on  earth  the  function  of  Saviour. 

in.— Third  Testimony:  vv.  35-37. 

Vv.  35,  36.  "  On  the  next  day,  John  was  again  standing  there,  and  two  of 
his  disciples  with  him  ;  36,  and  fixing  his  eyes  upon  Jesus  as  he  passed  he 
saith :  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God."  Holy  impressions,  great  thoughts,  an 
unutterable  expectation  doubtless  filled,  even  on  the  following  day,  the 
hearts  of  those  who  had  heard  the  words  of  the  forerunner.  The  next 
day,  John  is  at  his  post  ready  to  continue  his  ministry  as  the  Baptist. 
We  are  not  at  all  authorized  to  suppose,  with  de  Wette,  that  the  two  disci- 
ples who  were  with  him  had  not  been  present  at  the  scene  of  the  preceding 
day.  Far  from  favoring  this  idea,  the  brevity  of  the  present  testimony 
leads  us  rather  to  suppose  that  John  confines  himself  to  recalling  that  of 
the  day  before  to  persons  Avho  had  heard  it.  The  expression  e*  t€>v 
nadTjTuv,  of  his  disciples,  intimates  that  he  had  a  very  considerable 
number  of  them.  Of  these  two  disciples,  one  was  Andrew  (ver.  40) ;  it  is 
difficult  to  suppose  that  the  other  was  not  the  author  of  the  narrative 
which  is  to  follow.  All  the  subsequent  details  have  no  special  importance 
except  for  the  one  to  whom  they  recalled  the  most  decisive  and  happiest 
hour  of  his  life.  The  fact  that  his  person  remains  anonymous,  while  the 
four  others  who  play  a  part  in  the  narrative  are  all  named,  confirms  this 
conclusion  (Introd.  p.  203).  We  may  notice  a  certain  difference  be- 
tween this  day  and  the  day  before  in  the  relation  of  Jesus  to  John.  The 
day  before,  Jesus  came  to  John,  as  to  the  one  who  was  to  introduce  Him 

1  Instead  of  o  uio?  tov  0eov,  K  read?  o  exAexTos  tov  0eov.    It  is  the  only  document  which 
presents  this  plainly  indefensible  reading. 
21 


322  FIRST   PART. 

to  future  believers.  On  this  day,  the  testimony  is  officially  given ;  He 
has  only  in  a  sense  to  receive  from  the  hands  of  His  forerunner  the  souls 
which  His  Father  has  prepared  through  him.  Like  the  magnet  which 
one  moves  through  the  sand  to  attract  metallic  particles,  He  simply 
approaches  the  group  which  surrounds  the  Baptist,  for  the  purpose  of 
deciding  some  of  those  who  compose  it  to  follow  Him.  The  conduct  of 
Jesus  is,  therefore,  perfectly  intelligible.  It  is  regulated  according  to  the 
natural  course  of  the  divine  work.  The  Church  is  not  torn,  it  is  gathered, 
from  the  tree  of  the  theocracy.   This  easiness  in  the  course  is  the  seal  of  God. 

As  Jesus  enters  into  the  plan  of  God,  John  the  Baptist  enters  into  the 
thought  of  Jesus.  A  tender  and  respectful  scruple  might  detain  the  two 
disciples  near  their  old  master.  John  the  Baptist  himself  frees  them  from 
this  bond,  and  begins  to  .realize  that  saying,  which  from  this  moment 
becomes  his  motto  :  "  He  must  increase,  but  I  must  decrease."  The  word 
e/iflMipas  indicates  a  penetrating  look  which  searches  its  object  to  its 
depths  (see  ver.  42).  The  practical  meaning  of  this  new  declaration  of 
John  was  evidently  this  :  "  Go  to  Him."  Otherwise,  to  what  purpose  this 
repetition  which  adds  nothing  to  the  testimony  of  the  day  before,  which, 
on  the  contrary,  abridges  it?  Only  this  invitation  is  expressed  in  an 
indirect  form,  that  of  an  affirmation  respecting  the  person  of  Jesus,  be- 
cause, as  Luthardt  says,  attachment  to  Jesus  was  to  be  on  their  part  an 
act  of  freedom  based  upon  a  personal  impression,  not  a  matter  of  obedi- 
ence to  their  old  master. 

Ver.  37.  "And  the  two  disciples  heard  him  speak1  thus,  and  they  followed 
Jesus."  John's  word,  which  was  an  exclamation,  was  understood.  It  is 
very  evident  that,  in  the  thought  of  the  evangelist,  these  words  :  "And 
they  followed  Jesus"  conceal,  under  their  literal  sense,  a  richer  meaning. 
This  first  step  in  following  Jesus  decided  their  whole  life ;  the  bond,  appar- 
ently accidental,  which  was  formed  at  that  hour,  was,  in  reality,  an 
eternal  bond. 

The  Testimonies  of  the  Forerunner. 

We  have  still  to  examine  three  questions  which  criticism  has  raised  in  regard 
to  these  testimonies. 

I.  Baur  and  Keim  2  maintain  that  the  narrative  of  the  fourth  Gospel  denies, 
by  its  silence,  the  fact  of  the  Baptism  of  Jesus  by  John  ;  and  this  for  the  dogmatic 
reason,  that  it  would  have  been  contrary  to  the  dignity  of  the  Logos  to  receive  the 
Holy  Spirit. — Uilgenfeld  himself  rejects  this  view  (EM.  pp.  702  and  719) :  "The 
baptism  of  Jesus,"  he  says,  "  is  supposed,  not  related."  The  second  testimony  of 
John  vv.  31  f.,  mentions  it  as  an  accomplished  fact,  and  vv.  32,  33  imply  it,  since 
their  meaning  can  only  be  this  :  "Among  the  Israelites  who  shall  come  to  thy 
baptism,  there  shall  be  found  one  on  whom,  when  thou  shalt  baptize  him,  thou 
shalt  see  the  Spirit  descend.  ..."  Holtzmann  has  recognized  the  indisputable 
bearing  of  this  passage.3     But  if  the  fact  is  not  related,  it  is  simply,  because,  as  we 

1  X  and  B  place  avrov  before  \aXovi>To<;.  John." 

*Keim  (I.,  p.  620):  "The  fourth  Gospel  is  »  Hilgenfeld's  Zeitschr.  f.wiss.  Theol.,  1872 

wholly  iguorant  of  a  baptism  of  Jesus  by       p.  156  f. 


chap.  i.  37.  323 

have  discovered,  the  starting  point  of  the  narrative  is  chosen  subsequently  to  the 
baptism.  If  the  Logos-theory  in  our  (Jospel  were  to  play  the  part  which,  in  this 
case,  Baur  and  Keim  attribute  to  it,  it  would  exclude  from  the  history  of  Jesus 
many  other  facts  which  are  related  at  full  length  by  our  evangelist. 

II.  It  has  been  regarded  as  inconceivable,  that,  after  such  a  sign  and  such  dec- 
larations, the  Baptist  could  have  addressed  to  Jesus,  from  the  depths  of  his  prison, 
this  question :  "Art  thou  he  that  should  come,  or  are  we  to  look  for  another"  (Matt. 
xi.  3)  ?  Strauss  has  derived  from  this  proceeding  of  John,  a  ground  for  denying 
the  whole  scene  of  the  baptism.  Some  of  the  Fathers  supposed  that  the  forerun- 
ner wished  thereby  only  to  strengthen  the  faith  of  his  disciples  by  calling  forth 
a  positive  declaration,  on  Jesus'  part,  respecting  His  Messianic  character.  But 
the  terms  of  the  Synoptical  account  do  not  allow  this  meaning.  Two  circum- 
stances may  be  alleged  which  must  have  exercised  an  unfavorable  influence  upon 
John's  faith;  first,  his  imprisonment  (Meyer),  then  the  malevolent  disposition  of 
Ids  disciples  with  regard  to  Jesus  (iii.  26),  which  might  have  reacted  at  length 
on  the  already  depressed  spirit  of  their  master.  These  two  circumstances  un- 
doubtedly prepared  the  way  for  the  shaking  of  faith  produced  in  John  ;  but  they 
cannot  suffice  to  explain  it ;  we  must  add,  with  Bdumlein,  the  fact  that  there  was 
in  John,  besides  the  prophet,  the  natural  man  Avho  was  by  no  means  secure  from 
falling.  This  is  what  Jesus  gives  us  to  understand  when,  in  His  reply,  He  said, 
evidently  thinking  of  John  :  "Blessed  is  he  who  is  not  offended  in  me"  (Matt.  xi.  6 
comp.  with  ver.  11).  Liicke  has  explained  this  fall  by  the  striking  contrast 
between  the  expectation,  which  John  had  expressed,  of  a  powerful  and  judicial 
activity  of  the  Messiah  in  order  to  purify  the  theocracy,  and  the  humble  and 
patient  labor  of  Jesus.  A  comparison  of  the  reply  of  the  latter  to  the  messengers 
of  John  (Matt.  xi.  4-6)  with  the  proclamations  of  John  (Matt.  iii.  10,  12)  is 
enough  to  convince  us  of  the  justice  of  this  observation.  But  to  all  this  we  must 
still  add  a  last  and  more  decisive  fact.  It  is  this :  John  did  not  for  an  instant 
doubt  concerning  the  divine  mission  of  Jesus  and  concerning  this  mission  as 
higher  than  his  own.  This  follows,  first,  from  the  fact  that  it  is  to  Jesus  Himself 
that  he  addresses  himself  in  order  to  be  enlightened,  and  then,  from  the  very 
meaning  of  his  question  :  ''Art  thou  he  that  should  come  or  are  we  to  look  for 
another  (literally,  a  second)?"  We  must  recall  to  mind  here  the  prevailing 
doubt,  at  that  time,  in  relation  to  the  prophet,  like  to  Moses,  whose  coming  was 
to  prepare  the  way  for  that  of  the^Messiah  (according  to  Deut.  xviii.  18).  Some 
identified  him  with  the  Messiah  himself;  comp.  John  vi.  14,  15  :  "  It  is  of  a  truth 
the  prophet.  .  .  .  They  were  going  to  take  him  by  force,  to  make  him  ting." 
Others,  on  the  contrary,  distinguished  this  prophet  par  excellence,  from  the  Mes- 
siah properly  so-called  ;  comp.  vii.  40,  41.  They  attributed,  probably,  to  the  first 
of  these  personages  the  spiritual  side  of  the  expected  transformation,  and  to  the 
Messiah,  as  King  descended  from  David,  the  political  side  of  this  renovation.  John 
the  Baptist  had,  at  first,  united  these  two  offices  in  the  single  person  of  Jesus. 
But  learning  in  his  prison  that  the  work  of  Jesus  limited  itself  to  working  mir- 
acles of  healing,  to  giving  forth  the  preachings  of  a  purely  prophetic  character, 
he  asks  himself  whether  this  anointed  one  of  the  Holy  Spirit  would  not  have  as 
His  part  in  the  Messianic  work  only  the  spiritual  office,  and  whether  the  political 
restoration  and  the  outward  judgment  announced  by  him  would  not  be  devolved 
upon  a  subsequent  messenger ;  to  the  divine  prophet,  the  work  of  pardon  and 
regeneration :  to  the  King  of  a  Davidic  race,  the  acts  of  power  which  were  des- 


324  FIRST   PART. 

tined  to  realize  the  external  triumph  of  the  Kingdom  of  God.  This  is  precisely 
what  the  form  of  the  question  in  Matthew  expresses:  erepov,  not  aTilov;  a  second 
(Messiah) ;  not :  another  (as  Messiah) :  this  expression  really  ascribes  to  Jesus  the 
Messianic  character,  only  not  exclusively.1  At  the  foundation,  this  distinction 
which  was  floating  before  the  eyes  of  the  Baptist  had  in  it  nothing  erroneous.  It 
answers  quite  simply  to  the  two  offices  of  Jesus,  at  His  first  and  second  coming. 
At  the  first  coming,  pardon  and  the  Spirit ;  at  the  second,  judgment  and  royalty. 
The  Jewish  learned  men  were  led  by  the  apparently  contradictory  prophecies  of 
the  Old  Testament,  to  an  analogous  distinction.  Buxtorf  (Lexic.  Chcddaic.  p.  1273) 
and  Eiscnmenger  (Entdeckt,  Judenth.  pp.  744  f.)  cite  a  mass  of  rabbinical  passages 
which  distinguish  two  Messiahs, — the  one,  whom  they  call  the  son  of  Joseph,  or  of 
Ephraim,  to  whom  they  ascribe  the  humiliations  foretold  respecting  the  Messiah  ; 
the  other,  whom  they  name  tJie  son  of  David,  to  whom  they  apply  the  prophecies 
of  glory.  The  first  will  make  war,  and  will  perish  ;  for  him  the  sufferings ;  the 
second  will  raise  the  first  to  life  again  and  will  live  eternally.  "Those  who  shall 
escape  from  the  sword  of  the  first,  will  fall  under  that  of  the  second."  "The  one 
shall  not  bear  envy  against  the  other,  juxta  fidem  nostram,"  says  Jarchi  (ad.  Jes.  xi. 
13).     These  last  words  attest  the  high  antiquity  of  this  idea. 

III.  Renan  (Vie  de  Jesus,  pp.  108  f.)  draws  a  poetic  picture  of  the  relation 
between  "  these  two  youns  enthusiasts,  full  of  the  same  hopes  and  the  same  hates, 
who  were  able  to  make  common  cause  and  mutually  to  support  each  other."  He 
describes  Jesus  arriving  from  Galilee  with  "  a  little  school  already  formed,"  and 
John  fully  welcoming  "  this  swarm  of  young  Galileans,"  even  though  they  do  not 
attach  themselves  to  him  but  form  a  separate  band  around  Jesus.  "  We  have 
not  many  examples,  it  is  true,"  observes  Eenan,  "  of  the  head  of  a  school  eagerly 
welcoming  the  one  who  is  to  succeed  him ; "  but  is  not  youth  capable  of  all  self-ab- 
negations? Behold  the  romance:  the  history  shows  us  Jesus  arriving  alone  and 
receiving  from  John  himself  these  young  Galileans  who  are  for  the  future  to 
accompany  Him.  We  can  understand  how  there  is  in  this  story  a  troublesome 
fact  for  those  who  are  unwilling  to  explain  the  history  except  by  natural 
causes. 

The  manner  in  which  John  the  Baptist,  at  the  height  of  his  ascendant  and  his 
glory,  throws  himself  immediately  and  voluntarily  into  the  shade  that  he  may 
leave  the  field  free  for  one  younger  than  himself,  who  until  then  was  completely 
obscure,  cannot  be  explained  by  the  natural  generosity  of  youth.  Conscious,  as  he 
was,  of  the  divinity  of  his  mission,  John  could  not  thus  retire  into  the  shade 
except  before  a  divine  demonstration  of  the  higher  mission  of  Jesus.  The  con- 
duct of  John  the  Baptist,  as  attested  by  our  four  evangelists,  remains  for  the 
historian,  who  does  not  recognize  here  the  work  of  God,  an  insoluble  problem. 
Before  closing,  one  word  more  on  a  fancy  of  Keim.     This  scholar  alleges  (I.,  p 

i  The  expectation  of  a  great  prophet,  who  nounced  (chap.  14,  Latin  transl.  published  by 
is  not  expressly  designated  as  Messiah,  may  Ceriani),  the  coming  of  a  supreme  messenger, 
be  proved  from  the  work  entitled  TheAssump-  nuntius  in  summo  constitutus,  whose  hands 
tion  of  Moses,  composed  in  the  years  which  shall  befitted,  in  order  to  effect  the  deliver- 
followed  the  death  of  Herod  the  Great  (com p.  ance  of  the  people.  Moses  himself  receives 
Wieseler,  Stud.  u.  Kritiken,  1808,  and  Schurer,  only  the  name  of  great  messenger,  magnvs 
Lehrbuch,  etc.,  p.  510).  In  this  work,  which  nuntius  (c.  18).  This  messenger  will,  there- 
contains  the  most  faithful  description  of  the  fore,  be  the  final  prophet,  a  Moses  of  the 
spiritual  state  of  the  Jewish  people  at  the  second  power;  but  no  royal  and  Messianic 
very  time  of  the  birth  of  Jesus,  there  is  an-  title  is  ascribed  to  him. 


chap.  i.  38,  39.  325 

525)  that,  in  opposition  to  the  Synoptical  account  (comp.  especially  Luke  iii.  21), 
our  (Jospel  makes  Jesus  the  first  of  all  the  people  to  come  to  the  baptism  of  John.1 
"Where  do  we  find  in  John's  narrative  a  word  which  justifies  this  assertion?  But: 
sic  volo,  sicjubeo  ! 

IV.  We  are  now  able  to  embrace  the  Messianic  testimony  of  the  Baptist  in  its 
totality.  First,  the  calling  of  the  people  to  repentance  and  baptism,  with  the 
vague  announcement  of  the  nearness  of  the  Messiah.  He  comes  I  (See  the  Synoptics.) 
Then,  the  three  days  which  form  the  beginning  of  the  narrative  of  John :  He  is 
present!  Behold  Him!  Follow  Him!  Finally,  the  last  summons  :  Woe  unto  you,  if 
you  refuse  to  follow  Him  !  (iii.  28-36.)  This  totality  is  so  much  the  more  remark- 
able as  the  particular  elements  of  it  are  scattered  in  several  writings  and  different 
narratives. 

SECOND  SECTION. 

I.  38-52. 

Beginnings  of  the  Work  of  Jesus. — Birth  of  Faith. 

Testimony  is  the  condition  of  faith.  For  faith  is,  at  the  outset,  the  ac- 
ceptance of  a  divine  fact  on  the  foundation  of  testimony.  But  there  is 
here  only  an  external  relation  between  the  believer  and  the  object  of  faith. 
In  order  to  become  living,  faith  must  enter  into  direct  contact  with  its  ob- 
ject. In  the  case  which  occupies  our  thought,  this  contact  demanded 
personal  manifestations  of  Jesus,  fitted  to  change  believers  into  witnesses, 
and  to  form  a  direct  connection  between  their  hearts  and  Jesus.  This  is 
precisely  what  the  following  narratives  describe  to  us.  They  are  divided 
into  two  groups ;  the  first  comprising  that  which  relates  to  the  three  ear- 
liest disciples,  Andrew,  John  and  Peter  (vv.  38-43) ;  the  second,  that  which 
concerns  Philip  and  Nathanael  (vv.  44-52). 

1.— First   Group  :  vv.  38-43. 

We  have  just  mentioned  John.  Almost  all  the  adversaries  of  the  au- 
thenticity themselves  acknowledge  that  the  author,  in  relating  his  story  as 
he  does  here,  wishes  to  pass  himself  off  as  one  of  the  apostles.  Even 
Hilgevfeld  says:  "Andrew  and  an  unnamed  person  who  is  assuredly 
John." 

Vv.  38,  39.  "  Then7  Jesus  turned  and  saw  them  following  and  saith  unto 
them,  What  seek  ye  f  39.  They  said  unto  Him  :  Rabbi  (ivhich  is  to  say,  Mas- 
ter) where  dwellest  thou  f  "  Jesus,  hearing  footsteps  behind  Him,  turns 
about.  He  sees  these  two  young  men  who  are  following  Him  with  the  de- 
sire to  accost  Him,  but  who  do  not  venture  to  begin  the  conversation  by 
addressing  Him.  He  anticipates  them  :  "  What  seek  ye  f  "  He  Avho  thus 
interrogates  them  knows  full  well  what  they  are  seeking  after.  He  knows 
to  whom  the  desire  of  Israel  and  the  sighing  of  humanity  tend  ;  He  is 
not  ignorant  that  He  is  Himself  their  object.     By  their  answer,  the  disci- 

^'Dasvierte  Evanselium  kehrt  die  Dinp;o        sein." 
um  uud  lasst  Jesum  zuerst  auf  der  Stcllc  i  Mjj.  and  30  Mnn.  omit  Se. 


326  FIRST  PART. 

pies  modestly  express  the  desire  to  speak  with  Him  in  private.  The  title 
Rabbi  is  undoubtedly  quite  inferior  to  that  which  the  testimony  of  John 
had  revealed  to  them  concerning  Jesus.  But  discretion  prevents  them 
for  the  moment  from  saying  more.  This  title,  at  the  same  time,  expresses 
indirectly  the  intention  to  offer  themselves  to  Him  as  disciples.  The 
translation  of  this  term,  which  is  added  by  the  evangelist,  proves  that  the 
author  is  writing  for  Greek  readers.1 

Ver.  40.  "  He  saith  unto  them:  Come,  and  you  shall  see.7  They  came3  and 
saw  where  he  abode  :  and  they  remained  with  him  that  day  ;  it  was  *  about  the 
tenth  hour."  The  disciples  made  inquiries  as  to  His  dwelling,  that  they 
might  afterwards  visit  Him  there.  Jesus  invites  them  to  follow  Him  at 
once  :  "Come  immediately."  This  is,  indeed,  what  the  present  epxeode  in- 
dicates :  the  continuance  of  the  going.  It  has  been  said  that  this  sense 
would  require  the  aorist.  v  This  is  an  error.  The  aorist  would  signify  : 
set  about  going.  Is  the  reading  of  the  Vatican  MS. :  "  Come  and 
you  shall  see,"  preferable  to  that  of  the  greater  part  of  the  other  docu- 
ments ?  We  may  suppose  that  the  latter  comes  from  ver.  47.  Where 
was  Jesus  dwelling?  Was  it  in  a  caravansary,  or  in  a  friend's  house? 
We  do  not  know.  No  more  do  we  know  what  was  the  subject  of  their 
conversation.  But  we  do  know  the  result  of  it.  Andrew's  exclamation 
in  ver.  42  is  the  enthusiastic  expression  of  the  effect  produced  on  the  two 
disciples.  When  we  remember  what  the  Messiah  was  to  the  thought  of  a 
Jew,  we  understand  how  powerful  and  profound  must  have  been  the  im- 
pression produced  upon  them  by  Jesus,  to  the  end  that  they  should  not 
hesitate  to  proclaim  as  Messiah  this  poor  and  unostentatious  man.  In 
the  remark :  "  And  they  remained  ivith  Him  that  day,"  all  the  sweetness  of  a 
recollection  still  living  in  the  heart  of  the  evangelist  at  the  moment  of  his 
writing,  finds  expression.  The  tenth  hour  may  be  understood  in  two  ways  : 
either  as  four  o'clock  in  the  afternoon;  John  would  thus  reckon  the 
hours  as  they  were  generally  reckoned  among  the  ancients,  beginning  from 
six  o'clock  in  the  morning, — we  shall  see  that  this  is  the  most  natural  in- 
terpretation in  iv.  6,  52,  and  also  in  xix.  14 ; — or  as  ten  o'clock  in  the  morn- 
ing; he  would,  thus,  adopt  the  mode  of  reckoning  of  the  Roman  Forum, 
which  has  become  that  of  modern  nations,  and  according  to  which  the 
reckoning  is  from  midnight.  Rettig,  Ebrard,  Westcott,  etc.,  think  that  the 
author  of  our  Gospel  reckons  throughout  in  this  way.  It  would  give  a 
satisfactory  account  of  the  expression  that  day.  But  this  expression  is 
also  very  well  explained,  if  the  question  is  of  four  o'clock  in  the  afternoon  ; 
and  that  by  the  contrast  with  the  idea  of  the  mere  visit  which  the  two 
youths  had  thought  of  making.  Instead  of  continuing  a  few  moments,  the 
interview  was  prolonged  until  the  end  of  the  day.  Comp.  the  remarks  iv.  6, 

1  Vv.  38,  39  (in  the  Greek  text)  are  united  otf/evde  (you  shall  nee). 

in  our  version.    Ver.  40  thereby  becomes  ver.  aT.  R.  with  13  Mjj.  omits  the  ow  (therefore) 

39,  and  so  on.  here,  which  is  read  by  K  A  B  C  L  X  A. 

*T.  R.  reads  iSere  (see),  with  K  A  and  13  4T.  R.  reads  6e  (now)  after  wpa  with  som» 

other  Mjj.,  almost  all  the  Mnn.,  It.  Vg.  Cop.,  Mod.  only, 
while  B  C  L  some  Mnn.  Syr.  and  Orig.  read 


chap.  i.  40-42.  327 

iv.  52,  xix.  14.1  This  indication  of  the  tenth  hour  has  sometimes  been 
applied,  not  to  the  moment  when  the  disciples  arrived,  but  that  when  they 
left  Jesus.  In  this  case,  however,  John  would  undoubtedly  have  added  a 
limiting  expression,  such  as  ore  intijWov,  when  they  departed.  It  is  the  hour 
when  he  found,  not  that  when  he  left,  that  the  author  wished  to  indicate. 
Faith  is  no  sooner  born  of  testimony,  than  it  extends  itself  by  the  same 
means  : 

Vv.  41,  42.  "  Andrew,  Simon  Peter's  brother,  ivas  one  of  the  two  who  heard 
John's  words  and  followed  Jesus.  42.  As  the  first,  he 2  findclh  his  own  brother 
Simon,  and  saith  to  him :  We  have  fownd  the  Messiah  (which  means  :  the 
Christ)."  At  this  point  of  the  narrative,  the  author  names  his  companion 
Andrew.  It  is  because  the  moment  has  come  to  point  out  his  relationship 
to  Simon  Peter,  a  relationship  which  exercised  so  decisive  an  influence  on 
the  latter  and  on  the  work  which  is  beginning.  The  designation  of  An- 
drew as  Simo7i  Peter's  brother,  is  so  much  the  more  remarkable,  since 
Simon  Peter  has  not  as  yet  figured  in  the  narrative,  and  since  the  sur- 
name Peter  did  not  as  yet  belong  to  him.  This  future  apostle,  is,  there- 
fore, treated  from  the  first  as  the  most  important  personage  of  this  his- 
tory. Let  us  remark,  also,  that  this  manner  of  designating  Andrew  assumes 
a  full  acquaintance  already  on  the  part  of  the  readers  with  the  Gospel  his- 
tory. Did  Peter's  visit  to  Jesus  take  place  on  the  same  evening?  Weiss 
and  Keil  declare  that  this  is  impossible,  because  of  the  expression  that  day 
(ver.  40),  which  leaves  no  place  for  this  new  visit.  Westcott,  on  the  con- 
trary says  :  "  All  this  evidently  happened  on  the  same  day."  This  second 
view,  which  is  that  of  Meyer  and  Briickner,  seems  to  me  the  only  admissi- 
ble one.  It  follows,  by  a  kind  of  necessity,  from  the  exact  enumeration 
of  the  days  in  this  passage.  See  :  the  next  day,  vv.  29,  35,  44,  and  also  ii.  1. 
Towards  evening,  the  two  disciples  left  Jesus  for  some  moments,  and  Peter 
was  brought  by  Andrew  to  Him  while  it  was  not  yet  night. 

How  are  we  to  explain  the  expressions  u  first  "  (or  in  the.  first-place)  and 
"  his  own  brother  "  ?  These  words  have  always  presented  a  difficulty  to 
interpreters.     They  contain,  in  fact,  one  of  those  small  mysteries  with 

1  We  owe  to  the  kindness  of  M.  Andr6  bath,  he  chose  the  sixth  hour  as  the  most 
Cherbuliez  the  following  points  of  informa-  favorable  to  health.  Now  it  was  winter,  and 
tion:  iElins  Aristides,  a  Greek  sophist  of  the  it  was  a  cold  bath  which  was  in  question, 
second  century,  a  contemporary  of  Polycarp,  The  hour  was,  therefore,  that  of  noon.  What 
with  whom  he  may  have  met  in  the  streets  of  leaves  no  doubt  on  this  point,  is  the  fact  that 
Smyrna,  relates  in  his  Sacred  Discourses  he  says  to  his  friend  Bassus  who  keeps  him 
(book  v.),  that  on  his  arrival  in  that  city,  he  waiting:  '"Seest  thou,  the  shadow  is  already 
had,  during  the  night,  a  dream  in  which  the  turning."  The  ordinary  reckoning  in  Asia, 
sun,  rising  over  the  public  square,  ordered  therefore,  was  from  six  o'clock  in  the  morn- 
him  to  hold,  on  that  same  day,  a  seance  for  ing.  Lanyen  has  alleged  in  favor  of  the  op- 
declamation  in  the  Council-hall  at  the  fourth  posite  usage  a  passage  from  the  Acts  of  the 
hour.  This  hour,  according  to  the  customs  martyrdom  ol  Polycarp  (c.  7).  But  this  pas- 
of  the  ancients,  could  only  be  ten  o'clock  in  sage  appears  to  us  insufficient  to  prove  the 
the  morning, — the  hour  which  Xenophon  contrary  of  that  which  follows  so  plainly  from 
calls  that  of  the  7rA7J0ou<7-a  ayopa,  when  the  the  words  of  the  Greek  rhetorician, 
whole  population  frequents  the  public  square.  2  Instead  of  the  received  reading  npuiTot, 
So  he  found  the  hall  quite  full.  In  the  first  which  is  in  N  L  r  A  A  and  8  other  Mjj.,  A  BM. 
book,  the  deity  having  ordered  him  to  take  a  Tb  X  n  some  Man.  Syr.  read  irpmrov. 


328  FIRST   PART. 

which  John's  narrative,  at  once  so  subtle  and  so  simple,  is  full.  The  Mjj. 
which  read  the  adverb  or  the  accusative  npurov,  are  six  in  number,  among 
them  the  Vatican  :  "  He  finds  his  own  brother  first  (or  in  the  first-place)." 
But  with  what  brother  would  he  be  contrasted  by  this  -first  ?  With  the 
disciples  who  were  found  later,  Philip  and  Nathanael  ?  But  it  was  not 
Andrew  who  found  these ;  Jesus  found  Philip,  and  Philip  Nathanael. 
And  yet  this  would  be  the  only  possible  sense  of  the  accusative  or  the 
adverb  izpurov.  The  nominative  irpuroq,  therefore,  must  necessarily  be 
read,  with  the  Sinaitic  MS.  and  the  majority  of  the  Mjj. :  "As  the  first, 
Andrew  finds  his  own  brother."  This  might  strictly  mean  that  they  both 
set  about  seeking  for  Simon,  and  that  Andrew  was  the  first  to  find  him, 
because,  Simon  being  his  brother,  he  knew  better  where  to  seek  him ; 
this  would  in  a  manner  explain  the  rbv  Uiov,  his  own,  but  in  a  manner 
very  far-fetched.  As  it  is  impossible  to  make  this  very  emphatic  expres- 
sion a  mere  periphrasis  of  the  possessive  pronoun  his,  the  author's 
thought  must  be  acknowledged  to  have  been  as  follows :  "On  leaving, 
each  one  of  them  seeks  his  own  brother :  Andrew  seeks  Simon,  and  John 
his  brother  James ;  and  it  is  Andrew  who  first  succeeds  in  finding  his 
own."  The  rrpurov  may  have  been  substituted  for  irpurog  under  the  influ- 
ence of  the  four  following  words  in  ov. 

The  term  Messiah,  that  is,  the  Anointed,  from  maschach,  to  anoint,  was 
very  popular ;  it  was  used  even  in  Samaria  (iv.  25).  The  Greek  transla- 
tion of  this  title,  Xpicrdg,  again  implies  Greek  readers.  John  had  twice 
employed  the  Greek  term  in  the  preceding  narrative  (vv.  20  and  25) ;  but 
here,  in  this  scene  of  so  personal  a  character,  he  likes  to  reproduce  the 
Hebrew  title  (as  he  had  done  at  ver.  39,  as  he  is  to  do  again  in  iv.  25),  in 
order  to  preserve  for  his  narrative  its  dramatic  character.  If  we  have 
properly  explained  this  verse,  we  must  conclude  from  it  that  James, 
the  brother  of  John,  was  also  among  the  young  Galilean  disciples 
of  John  the  Baptist,  and  that  John  is  not  willing  to  name  him  any 
more  than  he  is  to  name  himself,  or  afterwards  to  name  his  mother, 
xix.  25. 

Ver.  43.  "  And^  he  brought  him  to  Jesus.  Jesus,  looking  upon  him  fixedly, 
saith,  Thou  art  Simon,  son  of  Jonas,2  thou  shalt  be  called  Cephas  (ivhich  means: 
Peter)."  The  pres.  he  finds  and  he  says  (ver.  42)  were  descriptive ;  the  aor. 
he  brought  indicates  the  transition  to  the  follosving  act :  the  presentation 
of  Peter.,  The  word  k^Tdnuv  denotes  a  penetrating  glance  which  reaches 
to  the  very  centre  of  the  individuality.  This  word  serves  to  explain  the 
following  apostrophe ;  for  the  latter  is  precisely  the  consequence  of  the 
way  in  which  Jesus  had  penetrated  the  character  of  Simon,  and  had 
discovered  in  him,  at  the  first  look,  the  elements  of  the  future  Peter.  It  is 
not  necessary  to  suppose  that  Jesus  in  a  miraculous  way  knew  the  names 
of  Simon  and  his  father;  Andrew,  in  presenting  his  brother,  must  have 
named  him  to  Jesus.     Instead  of  Jona,  the  three  principal  Alexandrian 

i|(BL  reject  k<ii  {and)  before  riyayev.  of  liova  which  is  read  in  all  the  other  Mjj. 

2N  B  L  It«''i  Cop.  read  Iuolvvov  instead       and  in  almost  all  the  Vss. 


chap.  I.  43.  329 

authorities  read  John.  The  received  reading  is,  perhaps,  a  correction 
according  to  Matt.  xvi.  17  (son  of  Jonas),  where  there  is  no  variation  of 
reading  and  where  the  name  Jonas  might  be  itself  an  abbreviation  of 
'ludivov  (John),  as  Weiss  supposes.  A  change  of  name  generally  marks  a 
change  of  life  or  of  position.  Gen.  xvii.  5 :  "  Thy  name  shall  be  no  more 
Abram  (exalted  father),  but  Abraham  (fatlier  of  a  multitude)."  Gen.  xxxii.  28: 
"  Thy  name  shall  be  no  more  Jacob  (supplanter),  but  Israel  (conqueror  of  God, 
in  honorable  combat)."  The  Aramaic  word  Kcpha  (Hebrew,  Keph), 
denotes  a  piece  of  rock.  By  this  name,  Jesus  characterizes  Simon  as  a 
person  courageous  enough  and  decided  enough  to  become  the  principal 
support  of  the  new  society  which  He  is  about  to  found.  There  was 
surely  in  the  physiognomy  of  this  young  fisherman,  accustomed  to  brave 
the  dangers  of  his  profession,  the  expression  of  a  masculine  energy  and 
of  an  originating  power.  In  designating  him  by  this  new  name,  Jesus  takes 
possession  of  him  and  consecrates  him,  with  all  his  natural  qualities,  to 
the  work  which  He  is  going  to  entrust  to  him. 

Baur  regards  this  story  as  a  fictitious  anticipation  of  that  in  Matt.  xvi. 
18 ;  the  author,  from  his  dogmatic  standpoint  hastens  to  show  forth  in 
Jesus  the  omniscience  of  the  Logos.  But  the  i/xj3?iirpag,  having  regarded 
Mm  fixedly,  is  by  no  means  consistent  with  such  an  intention  ;  and  as  for 
the  expression :  "  Thou  art  Peter,"  Matt,  xvi.,  it  implies  precisely  a  pre- 
vious expression  in  which  Jesus  had  already  conferred  this  surname  upon 
him.  Jesus  starts,  in  each  case,  from  that  which  is,  to  announce  that 
which  is  to  be  ;  here  :  "  Thou  art  Simon ;  thou  shalt  be  Peter ;  "  in  Mat- 
thew :  thou  art  Peter;  thou  shalt  really  become  what  this  name  declares. 
Availing  himself  of  the  fact  that  Peter  is  mentioned  here  third,  Hilgenfeld 
draws  up  his  argument  as  prosecutor  against  the  author,  and  says :  "  Peter 
is  thus  deprived  by  him  of  the  position  of  the  first-called !  "  And  he  finds 
here  a  proof  of  the  evangelist's  ill  will  towards  this  apostle.  Reuss'  says, 
with  the  same  idea,  "  Peter  is  here  very  expressly  put  in  the  second 
place."  But  the  designation  of  Andrew  as  Peter's  brother  (ver.  41),  before 
the  latter  has  appeared  on  the  scene,  and  the  magnificent  surname  which 
Jesus  confers  upon  him  at  first  sight,  while  no  similar  honor  had  been 
paid  to  his  two  predecessors — are  there  not  here,  in  our  narrative,  so 
many  points  designed  to  exalt  Simon  Peter  to  the  rank  of  the  principal 
personage  among  all  those  who  formed  the  original  company,  who  sur- 
rounded Jesus?  And  if  this  narrative  had  been  invented  with  the  pur- 
pose of  depreciating  Peter,  in  order  to  give  the  first  place  to  John,  why 
make  Andrew  so  prominent  and  place  him  even  before  the  latter?  And 
besides,  of  what  consequence  is  the  order  of  arrival  here?  Does  not  every 
unprejudiced  reader  feel  that  the  narrative  is  what  it  is,  simply  because 
the  event  happened  thus.  Comp.,  moreover,  vi.  68  and  xxi.  15-19  for  the 
part  ascribed  to  Peter  in  this  Gospel. 

A  contradiction  lias  been  found  between  this  account  and  that  of  the  calling  of 
the  same  disciples  in  Galilee,  after  the  miraculous  draught  of  fishes  (Matt.  iv.  18- 
22 ;  Mark  i.  16-20 ;  Luke  v.  1-11).     Be  Wette,  Bruckner,  Meyer  himself,  regard 


330  FIRST   PART. 

•ny  reconciliation  as  impossible,  and  give  preference  to  the  narrative  of  the  fourth 
Gospel.  To  the  view  of  Baur,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  our  narrative  which  is  an  in- 
vention of  the  author.  Locke  thinks  that  the  two  narratives  can  be  harmonized  ; 
that  of  John  having  reference  to  the  call  of  the  disciples  to  faith,  that  of  the 
Synoptics,  to  their  calling  as  preachers  of  the  Gospel,  in  conformity  with  the 
words:  "  I will  make  you  fishers  of men."  The  first  view  cannot  positively  explain 
how  the  Synoptical  narrative  could  arise  from  the  facts  related  here  by  John  and 
altered  by  the  oral  tradition.  Everything  is  too  completely  different  in  the  two 
scenes ;  the  place :  here,  Judea  ;  there,  Galilee  ;  the  time :  here,  the  first  days  of 
Jesus'  ministry  ;  there,  a  period  already  farther  on  ;  the  persons :  in  the  Synoptics, 
there  is  no  reference  either  to  Philip  or  Nathanael ;  on  the  other  hand,  James, 
who  is  not  named  here,  is  there  expressly  mentioned ;  the  situation :  here,  a 
simple  meeting ;  there,  a  fishing;  finally,  the  mode:  here,  a  spontaneous  attach- 
ment ;  there,  an  imperative  summons.  The  view  of  Baur,  on  the  other  hand, 
cannot  explain  how  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  in  the  face  of  the  Synoptical 
tradition  received  throughout  the  whole  Church,  could  attempt  to  create  a  new 
history  in  all  points  of  the  calling  of  the  principal  apostles,  and  a  history  which 
positively  glorifies  Jesus  much  less  than  that  of  the  Synoptics.  For  instead  of 
gaining  His  disciples  by  the  manifestation  of  His  power,  He  simply  receives  them 
from  John  the  Baptist.  The  view  of  Liicke  is  the  only  admissible  one  (see  also 
Weiss,  Keil  and  Westcott).  Having  returned  to  Galilee  (ver.  44),  Jesus  went 
back  for  a  time  to  the  bosom  of  His  own  family,  which  transferred  its  residence, 
probably  in  order  to  accompany  Him,  to  Capernaum  (Matt.  iv.  13;  John  ii.  12; 
comp.  Mark  iii.  31).  In  these  circumstances,  He  naturally  left  His  disciples  also 
to  return  to  the  bosom  of  their  families  (Peter  was  married) ;  and  He  called  them 
again,  afterwards,  in  a  complete  and  decisive  manner  when  the  necessities  of  His 
work  and  of  their  spiritual  education  for  their  future  task  required  it.  The  very 
readiness  with  which  'these  young  fishermen  followed  His  call  at  that  time  (Syn- 
optic account), — leaving,  at  His  first  word,  their  family  and  their  work  to  unite 
themselves  with  Him,  implies  that  they  had  already  sustained  earlier  relations  to 
Him.  Thus  the  account  of  the  Synoptics,  far  from  excluding  that  of  John,  im- 
plies it.  Let  us  remember  that  the  Synoptic  narratives  had  for  their  essential 
object  the  public  ministry  of  Jesus,  and  that,  consequently,  these  writings  could 
not  omit  a  fact  of  such  capital  importance  as  the  calling  of  the  earliest  disciples  to 
the  office  of  preachers.  The  fourth  Gospel,  on  the  contrary,  having  as  its  aim  to 
describe  the  development  of  apostolic  faith,  was  obliged  to  set  in  relief  the  scene 
which  had  been  the  starting  point  of  this  faith.  We  shall  prove  in  many  other 
cases  this  reciprocal  relation  between  the  two  writings,  which  is  explained  by 
their  different  points  of  view  and  aims. 


II. — Second  Group:  vv.  44-52. 

The  following  narrative  seems  to  be  contrived  for  the  purpose  of  driv- 
ing to  despair,  by  its  conciseness,  the  one  who  attempts  to  account  for  the 
facts  from  an  external  point  of  view.  Does  ver.  44  express  merely  the 
intention  of  setting  out  for  Galilee?  Or  does  it  indicate  an  actual  depart- 
ure? Where  and  how  did  Jesus  find  Philip  and  Nathanael  ?  Were  they 
also  in  Judea  among  the  disciples  of  John  the  Baptist?    Or  did  He  meet 


chap.  I.  44-46.  331 

them  on  His  arrival  in  Galilee  ? — Evidently,  a  narrative  like  this  could 
proceed  only  from  a  man  pre-occupied  above  all  with  the  spiritual  ele- 
ment in  the  history  which  he  relates,  and  who,  in  consequence,  simply 
sketches  as  slightly  as  possible  the  external  side  of  the  facts  related.  This 
is  the  general  character  of  the  narrative  of  the  fourth  Gospel. 

Vv.  44,  45 :  "  The  next  day  he 1  resolved  to  set  out  for  Galilee,  and  finds 
Philip  ;  and  Jesus  says  to  him :  Follow  me.  45.  Now  Philip  was  of  Bethsaida, 
of  the  city  of  Andrew  and  Peter."  The  aorist,  ijOkli/oev  (icished),  indicates 
quite  naturally,  a  realized  wish.  The  words :  "  He  icished  to  set  out  and  He 
finds,"  are  thus,  equivalent  to:  "At  the  moment  when  He  decides  to  set 
out,  He  finds."  Here  is  the  juxtaposition  of  propositions  which  is  so  fre- 
quent in  John  (Introd.,  p.  135).  This  mode  of  expression  is  irreconcilable 
with  the  idea  that  Jesus  only  met  Philip  at  a  later  time  in  Galilee ; 
the  latter  was,  therefore,  in  the  same  region  with  Andrew,  John  and 
Peter,  and  for  the  same  reason.  It  was  of  importance  to  Jesus  to  sur- 
round Himself  particularly  with  young  men  who  had  gone  through  with 
the  preparation  of  the  ministry  and  baptism  of  John  the  Baptist.  The 
notice  of  ver.  45,  intercalated  here,  gives  us  to  understand  that  it  was 
through  the  intervention  of  the  two  brothers,  Andrew  and  Peter,  that 
Philip  was  brought  into  connection  with  Jesus.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  expression:  He  finds,  is  incompatible  with  the  idea  that  they  had  posi- 
tively brought  him  to  Him.  At  the  time  of  His  setting  out,  Jesus  prob- 
ably found  him  conversing  with  his  two  friends ;  whereupon  He  invited 
him  to  join  himself  to  them.  The  words,  "  Follow  me,"  merely  signify, 
"  Accompany  me  on  this  journey."  But  Jesus  well  knew  what  must  re- 
sult from  this  union  once  formed ;  and  it  is  impossible  that  this  invitation 
should  not  have  had  in  His  thought  a  higher  import.  The  verb  ffifo/oev 
{wished),  denotes  a  deliberate  wish,  and  leads  us-  to  inquire  what  was  the 
motive  of  the  resolution,  which  Jesus  formed,  of  setting  out  again  for 
Galilee.  Hengstenberg  thinks  that  He  wished  to  conform  to  the  prophecies 
which  announced  that  Galilee  would  be  the  theatre  of  the  Messianic  min- 
istry. This  explanation  would  give  to  the  conduct  of  Jesus  somewhat  of 
artificiality.  According  to  others,  He  desired  to  separate  His  sphere  of 
action  from  that  of  John  the  Baptist,  or  also  to  withdraw  from  the  seat  of 
the  hierarchy  which  had  just  shown  itself  unfavorably  disposed  towards 
the  forerunner.  The  subsequent  narrative  (ii.  12-22)  appears  to  me  to 
lead  to  another  solution.  Jesus  must  inaugurate  His  Messianic  ministry 
at  Jerusalem;  but,  in  order  to  this,  He  desired  to  wait  for  the  solemn 
season  of  the  Passover  feast.  Before  this  time,  therefore,  He  decided  to 
return  to  His  family,  and  to  close,  in  the  days  which  remained  until  the 
Passover,  the  period  of  His  private  life. 

Ver.  46  :  "  Philip  finds  Nathanael  and  says  to  him :  We  have  found  Him  of 
whom  Moses,  in  the  law,  and  the  prophets  did  unite,  Jesus,  the  son  of  Joseph,  of 
Nazareth*  Philip's  part  in  the  calling  of  Nathanael  is  like  that  of  Andrew  in 

1  T.  R.  reads  here  :  o  Irjo-ovs  with  5  hyz.,  and        Na£ape(J ;  XABLX:  NafapeT ;  A  :  'Na£apa.O 
omits  it  with  4  of  them  in  the  fnllnwintrelanse.        e  :  Ha£apa  (see  my  Comment,  sur  Vev.  de  Luc, 
«  T.  R.  with  EFGHKMUVrAII:       2d.  ed.,  1. 1.,  pp.  107, 108. 


332  FIRST   PART. 

the  calling  of  Peter,  and  that  of  Peter  and  Andrew  in  his  own.  One 
lighted  torch  serves  to  light  another;  thus  faith  propagates  itself.  Lu- 
thewdt  sets  forth  finely  the  heavy  and  complicated  form  of  Philip's  pro- 
fession ;  those  long  preliminary  considerations,  that  full  and  formal  Mes- 
sianic certificate,  which  is  in  contrast  with  the  lively  and  unconstrained 
Btyle  of  Andrew's  profession  (ver.  4:2).  The  same  traits  of  character  are 
met  with  again  in  the  two  disciples  in  vi.  1-13,  and  perhaps  also  in  xii.  21, 
22.  From  the  fact  that  Philip  designates  Jesus  as  the  son  of Joseph,  and  as 
a  native  of  Nazareth,  Strauss,  de  Wette,  and  others,  conclude  that  the  fourth 
evangelist  either  was  ignorant  of,  or  did  not  admit,  the  miraculous  origin 
of  Jesus  and  His  birth  at  Bethlehem  ;  as  if  it  were  the  evangelist  who  was 
here  speaking,  and  not  Philip !  And  that  disciple,  after  exchanging  ten 
words  with  Jesus,  must  have  been  already  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the 
most  private  circumstances  of  His  birth  and  infancy !  Is  it  Andrew  and 
Peter  who  must  have  informed  him  of  them?  But  whence  could  they 
have  got  the  knowledge  of  them  themselves?  Or  Jesus?  We  must  sup- 
pose, then,  that  this  was  the  first  thing  that  Jesus  hastened  to  communi- 
cate to  them :  that  He  was  not  the  son  of  the  man  who  was  said  to  be  His 
father,  that  He  was  miraculously  born !  How  criticism  can  become  fool- 
ish, through  its  desire  of  being  sagacious !  The  place  where  Nathanael 
was  met  by  Jesus  and  His  disciples,  when  returning  to  Galilee,  is  not 
pointed  out.  The  most  probable  supposition  is,  that  they  met  each  other 
in  the  course  of  the  journey.  Philip,  who  was  his  fellow- citizen — Nathan- 
ael  was  also  of  Cana  (xxi.  2) — became  the  connecting-link  between  him 
and  Jesus.  We  may  suppose  that  Nathanael  was  returning  home  from  the 
presence  of  John  the  Baptist,  or  that,  like  all  his  pious  fellow-countrymen, 
he  was  going  to  be. baptized  by  him.  At  all  events,  he  had  just  rested  for 
a  few  moments  in  the  shade  of  a  fig-tree,  when  he  met  Jesus  and  His 
companions  (comp.  ver.  48).  Ewald  wrongly  supposes  the  meeting  to  have 
taken  place  at  Cana.  The  circumstantial  account  of  the  calling  of  Nathan- 
ael  leads  us  to  believe  that  he  afterwards  became  one  of  the  apostles: 
for  this  is  the  case  with  all  the  disciples  mentioned  in  this  narrative.  It 
appears,  moreover,  from  xxi.  2,  where  the  apostles  are  distinguished  from 
"the  mere  disciples,  and  where  Nathanael  is  placed  among  the  former.  As 
this  name  does  not  figure  in  the  apostolic  catalogues  (Matt.  x.  3;  Mark 
iii.  18;  Luke  vi.  14;  Acts  i.  13),  it  is  generally  admitted  that  Nathanael  is 
no  other  than  Bartholomew,  whos,e  name  is  connected  with  that  of  Philip 
in  almost  all  these  lists.  Bartholomew  being  only  a  patronymic  (son  of 
Tolmai  or  Ptolemy),  there  is  no  difficulty  in  this  supposition.  As  for  the 
hypothesis  of  Spath,  that  Nathanael  is  a  symbolic  name  (this  word  sig- 
nifies gift  of  God),  invented  by  the  later  author  to  designate  the  apostle 
John,  it  is  one  of  those  fancies  of  the  criticism  of  the  day,  which,  if  it 
needed  any  refutation,  would  be  refuted  by  its  insoluble  inconsistency  with 
xxi.  2. 

Ver.  47 :  "  And  Nathanael  said  unto  him  :  Can  anything  good  come  out  of 
Nazareth  ?  Philip  says  to  him :  Come  and  see."  According  to  Meyer, 
Nathanael's  answer  alludes  to  the  reputation  which  the  town  of  Naza- 


chap.  i.  47-49.  333 

reth  had  had  for  immorality;  according  to  Lilcke  and  de  Wette,  to  the 
smallness  of  the  place.  But  there  is  nothing  in  history  to  prove  that 
Nazareth  was  a  place  of  worse  fame,  or  less  esteemed  than  any  other  vil- 
lage of  Galilee.  Nathanael's  answer  does  not  at  all  require  such  supposi- 
tions. Is  it  not  more  simple  to  connect  this  reply  closely  with  the  words 
of  Philip?  Nathanael,  not  recollecting  any  prophetic  passage  which  as- 
scrihes  to  Nazareth  so  important  a  part,  is  astonished ;  the  more  so,  since 
Cana  is  only  at  the  remove  of  a  league  from  Nazareth,  and  it  is  difficult 
for  him  to  imagine  this  retired  village,  near  his  own,  raised  all  at  once  to 
so  high  a  destiny.  We  are  well  aware  of  the  paltry  jealousies  which  fre- 
quently exist  hetween  village  and  village.  The  expression,  anything  good, 
signifies,  therefore,  in  this  case  :  "anything  so  eminent  as  the  Messiah!  " 
We  notice  here,  for  the  first  time,  a  peculiarity  of  the  Johannean  narra- 
tive: the  author  seems  to  take  pleasure  in  mentioning  certain  objections 
raised  against  the  Messianic  dignity  of  Jesus,  to  which  he  makes  no  reply 
because  every  reader  instructed  in  the  Gospel  history  could  dispose  of 
them  on  the  spot  (comp.  vii.  27,  35,  42,  etc.).  At  the  time  when  John 
wrote,  every  Christian  knew  that  Jesus  was  not  actually  from  Nazareth. 
The  answer  of  Philip  :  "  Come  and  see,"  is  at  once  the  most  simple  and  the 
most  profound  apologetic.  To  every  upright  heart  Jesus  proves  Him- 
self by  showing  Himself.  This  rests  on  the  truth  expressed  in  ver.  9. 
(Comp.  iii.  21.) 

Ver.  48.  "Jesus  saw1  Nathanael  coming  to  him  and  saysof  him  :  Behold  a  true 
Israelite,  in  whom  there  is  no  guile."  Nathanael  is  one  of  those  upright 
hearts  who  have  only  to  see  Jesus  in  order  to  helieve  in  Him  ;  Philip  is 
not  mistaken.  Jesus  Himself,  as  He  sees  him,  also  signalizes  in  him  this 
quality.  Penetrating  him,  as  He  had  penetrated  Simon,  he  utters  aloud 
this  reflection  with  regard  to  him  (nepl  avrov) :  "  Behold.  .  .  "  We  can 
make  the  adverb  ali]du<;,  truly,  qualify  ISe,  Behold  really  an  Israelite  with- 
out guile;"  in  this  case,  the  idea  without  guile  is  not  placed  in  connection 
with  the  national  Israelitish  character ;  it  is  applied  to  Nathanael  person- 
ally. But  we  can  make  the  adverb  alrj-dug  qualify  the  word  Israelite :  a 
true  (truly)  Israelite,  and  that  as  being  without  guile."  In  that  case,  it  is 
the  national  character,  as  well  as  that  of  Nathanael,  which  Jesus  signal- 
izes, and  there  may  be,  perhaps,  an  allusion  to  the  name  Israel  (conqueror 
of  God)  which  was  substituted  for  Jacob  (supplanter),  after  the  mysterious 
scene,  Gen.  xxxii.,  where  the  new  way  of  struggling  took  the  place,  in  the 
patriarch's  case,  of  the  deceitful  methods  which  were  natural  to  him. 
However,  vi.  5  and  viii.  31,  where  the  adverb  qualifies  the  verb  to  be,  must 
not  be  cited  for  this  meaning. 

Ver.  49.  "  Nathanael  says  to  Him :  whence  knowest  thou  me  f  Jesus  an- 
swered and  said  to  him  :  Before  Philip  called  thee,  when  thou  wcrt  under  the 
fig-tree,  I  saw  tliee."  This  reply  by  which  Nathanael  seems  to  appropriate 
to  himself  the  eulogy  contained  in  ver.  48  has  been  criticised  as  not  mod- 
est.   But  he  wishes  simply  to  know  on  what  grounds  Jesus,  who  sees  him 

i  K  alone  reads  iSmv  .  .  .  Aeyei. 


334  FIRST   PART. 

for  the  first  time,  forms  this  judgment  of  him.  Certainly,  if  we  take 
account  of  the  extraordinary  effect  which  Jesus'  answer  produced  upon 
Nathanael  (ver.  50),  it  must  contain  to  his  view  the  indubitable  proof  of 
the  supernatural  knowledge  which  Jesus  has  of  him.  Lilcke  thinks  that 
this  knowledge  applies  only  to  the  inward  moral  state  of  Nathanael ; 
Meyer,  on  the  contrary,  that  it  applies  only  to  the  external  fact  of  his  sit- 
ting under  the  fig-tree.  But  thoroughly  to  comprehend  the  relation  of 
this  saying  of  Jesus,  on  the  one  side,  to  his  previous  declaration  (ver.  48), 
and,  on  the  other,  to  the  exclamation  of  Nathanael  (ver.  50),  it  is  indis- 
pensable to  unite  the  two  views.  Not  only  does  Nathanael  note  the  fact 
that  the  eye  of  Jesus  had  followed  him  in  a  place  where  His  natural  sight 
could  not  reach  him,  but  he  understands  that  the  eye  of  this  stranger  has 
penetrated  his  interior  being,  and  has  discerned  there  a  moral  fact  which 
justifies  the  estimate  expressed  by  Jesus  in  ver.  48.  Otherwise,  the  an- 
swer of  Jesus  does  not  any  the  more  justify  that  estimate,  and  we  cannot 
understand  how  it  can  call  forth  the  exclamation  of  Nathanael  in  ver.  50, 
or  be  presented,  in  vv.  51,  52,  as  the  first  of  the  Lord's  miraculous  works. 
What  had  taken  place  in  Nathanael,  at  that  moment  when  he  was  under- 
the  fig-tree  ?  Had  he  made  to  God  the  confession  of  some  sin  (Ps.  xxxii. 
1,  2),  taken  some  holy  resolution,  made  the  vow  to  repair  some  wrong? 
However  this  may  be,  serious  thoughts  had  filled  his  heart,  so  that,  on 
hearing  the  word  of  Jesus,  he  feels  that  he  has  been  penetrated  by  a  look 
which  participates  in  the  divine  omniscience.  The  words  :  before  Philip 
called  thee,  are  connected  by  Weiss  with  what  follows,  in  this  sense  :  "When 
thou  wert  under  the  fig-tree  before  Philip  called  thee."  But  they  much 
more  naturally  qualify  the  principal  verb  :  I  saw  thee.  And  the  same  is 
true  of  the  second  limiting  phrase  :  "  when  thou  wert  under  the  fig-tree," 
which  refers  rather  to  what  follows  than  to  what  precedes.  For  the  sit- 
uation in  which  Jesus  saw  him  is  of  more  consequence  than  that  in  which 
Philip  ccdled  him.  The  construction  of  vx6,  with  the  accusative  {ttjv  avd/v), 
with  the  verb  of  rest,  is  owing  to  the  fact  that  to  the  local  relation  there 
is  joined  the  moral  notion  of  shelter.  I  saw  denotes  a  view  such  as  that 
of  Elisha  (2  Kings  v.).  In  Jesus,  as  in  the  prophets,  there  was  a  higher 
vision,  which  may  be  regarded  as  a  partial  association  with  the  perfect 
vision  of  God.  At  this  word,  Nathanael  feels  himself,  as  it  were,  pene- 
trated by  a  ray  of  divine  light: 

Ver.  50j  "  Nathanael  answered  an,d  said  to  him  : x  Master,  thou  art  the  Son 
of  God  ;  thou  art  the  King  of  Israel."  By  the  title  Son  of  God,  he  expresses 
the  thrilling  impression  which  was  made  within  his  mind  by  the  intimate 
relation  between  Jesus  and  God,  of  which  he  had  himself  just  had  exper- 
ience. Liicke,  Meyer,  and  most  others  maintain  that  this  title  is  here 
equivalent  to  that  of  Messiah.  They  regard  this  as  proved  by  the  follow- 
ing expression :  the  King  of  Israel.  But  it  is  precisely  this  juxtaposition 
which  implies  a  difference  of  meaning.  At  all  events,  if  the  two  titles 
had  exactly  the  same  sense,  the  second  would  be  joined  to  the  first  as  a 

1  B.  L.  reject  kch,  Aeyei  auTio ;  X  reads  xai  «i7ree. 


chap.  i.  50,  51.  335 

simple  apposition,  while  the  repetition  of  the  pronoun  av,  thou,  and  of 
the  verb  el,  art,  before  the  second  title,  absolutely  excludes  this  synonymy. 
Besides,  the  title  which  Nathanael  here  gives  must  be  the  vivid  and  fresh 
expression  of  the  moral  agitation  which  he  has  just  experienced,  and  not, 
like  that  of  Messiah,  the  result  of  reflection.  If  the  latter  is  added  after- 
wards, it  is  to  do  justice  to  the  affirmation  of  Philip  (ver.  46);  but  still,  it 
can  only  come  in  the  second  place.  In  general,  we  believe  that  the 
equivalence  of  the  term,  Son  of  God,  with  that  of  Messiah,  even  in  the 
form  in  which  Weiss  makes  it  out,  who  understands  by  Son  of  God  the 
man  well-beloved  of  God,  never  wholly  corresponds  with  reality.  In  this 
passage,  in  particular,  the  title  Son  of  God,  can  only  be  connected  with 
the  proof  of  supernatural  knowledge  which  Jesus  has  just  given,  and  con- 
sequently, it  contains  the  feeling  of  an  exceptional  relation  between  Jesus " 
and  God.  Undoubtedly,  it  is  a  vague  impression  ;  but  it  is,  nevertheless, 
rich  and  full,  as  is  everything  which  is  a  matter  of  feeling,  even  more  than 
if  it  were  already  reduced  to  a  dogmatic  formula.  As  Luthardt  observes  : 
"  Nathanael's  faith  will  never  possess  more  than  that  which  it  embraces 
at  this  moment "  (the  living  person  of  Jesus),  it  will  only  be  able  to  pos- 
sess it  more  distinctly.  The  seeker  for  gold  puts  his  hand  on  an  ingot; 
when  he  has  coined  it  he  has  it  better,  but  not  more.  Tbe  two  titles  com- 
plete each  other :  Son  of  God  bears  on  the  relation  of  Jesus  to  God ;  King 
of  Israel  on  His  relation  to  the  chosen  people.  The  second  title  is  the 
logical  consequence  of  the  first.  The  personage  who  lives  in  so  intimate 
a  relation  with  God  can  only  be  the  King  of  Israel.  This  title  is  undoubt- 
edly the  response  to  that  of  true  Israelite,  with  which  Jesus  had  saluted 
Nathanael.  The  faithful  subject  has  recognized  and  salutes  his  King. 
Jesus  feels  indeed,  that  he  has  just  taken  the  first  step  in  a  new  career — 
that  of  miraculous  signs,  of  which  His  life  had  been  completely  destitute 
up  to  this  time ;  and  His  answer  breathes  the  most  elevated  feeling  of 
the  grandeur  of  the  moment. 

Ver.  51.  "  Jesus  ansivered  and  said  to  him :  Because  I  said  unto  thee  that x 
I  saw  thee  under  the  fig-tree,  thou  believest ;  thoti  shalt  see 2  greater  things  than 
these."  Since  Chrysostom,  most  interpreters  (Liieke,  Meyer,  etc.),  editors 
and  translators  (Tischendorf,  Rilliet),  give  to  the  words :  Thou  believest,  an 
interrogative  sense.  The)'  put  into  this  question  either  the  tone  of  sur- 
prise (Meyer)  because  of  a  faith  so  readily  formed,  or  even  that  of  reproach 
(de  Wette),  as  if  Nathanael  had  believed  before  he  had  sufficient  grounds 
for  it.  I  think,  notwithstanding  the  observations  of  Weiss  and  Keil,  that 
there  is  a  more  serene  dignity  in  the  answer  of  Jesus,  if  it  is  taken  as  an 
affirmation.  He  recognizes  and  approves  the  nascent  faith  of  Nathanael ; 
He  congratulates  him  upon  it ;  but  He  promises  him  a  succession  of  in- 
creasing miraculous  manifestations,  of  which  he  and  his  fellow-disciples 
will  be  witnesses,  and  which  from  this  moment  onwnrd  will  develop  their 
nascent  faith.    This  expression  proves  that  from  that  day  Nathanael  re- 

1  K  A  B  G  L  Syr.,  etc.,  read  on  before  » The  T.  R.  reads  o^ei  (Attic  form).    All  the 

nSov.  Mjj.  with  the  exception  of  U  V  read  oi^i). 


336  FIRST   PART. 

mained  with  Jesus.  Up  to  this  point,  Jesus  had  spoken  to  Nathanael 
alone:  "  Thou  believed  .  .  .  thou  shalt  see."  What  He  now  declares,  although 
also  promised  to  him,  concerns,  nevertheless,  all  the  persons  present. 

Ver.  52.  "And  he  says  to  him:  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  From  this 
time  onward 1  you  shall  see  the  heaven  opened  and  the  angels  of  God  ascending 
and  descending  upon  the  Son  of  man."  We  meet  for  the  first  time  the 
formula  amen,  amen,  which  is  found  twenty-five  times  in  John  {Meyer), 
and  nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testament.  Matthew  says  amen  (not 
repeated)  thirty  times.  This  expression  amen,  serving  as  an  introduction 
to  a  declaration  which  is  about  to  follow,  is  found  nowhere  either  in  the 
Old  Testament,  or  in  the  Rabbinical  writings.  It  belongs  exclusively  to 
the  language  of  Jesus.  Hence  is  the  fact  more  easily  explained  that  Jesus 
is  Himself  called  the  Arnen  in  the  Apocalypse  (iii.  14).  This  word 
(coming  from  the  Hebrew  aman,  firmum  fuit)  is  properly  a  verbal  adjective, 
firm,  worthy  of  faith  ;  it  is  used  as  a  substantive  in  Is.  lxv.  16 :  Elohe  amen, 
"  the  God  of  truth."  It  also  becomes  an  adverb  in  a  large  number  of 
passages  in  the  Old  Testament,  to  signify :  that  remains  sure ;  or :  let  it  be 
realized !  This  adverb  is  doubled,  as  in  St.  John,  in  the  two  following 
passages:  Num.  v.  22  :  "  Then  the  woman  (accused  of  adultery)  answered: 
Amen,  amen;  Nehem.  viii.  6:  All  the  people  answered:  Amen,  amen."  This 
doubling  implies  a  doubt  to  be  overcome  in  the  hearer's  mind.  The  sup- 
posed doubt  arises  sometimes,  as  here,  from  the  greatness  of  the  thing 
promised,  sometimes  from  a  prejudice  against  which  the  truth  affirmed 
has  to  contend  (for  example,  John  iii.  3,  5). 

The  words  ok'  apn,  from  now  on,  are  rejected  by  three  of  the  ancient 
Alexandrian  authorities;  they  were,  in  general,  adopted  by  the  moderns, 
and  by  Tischendorf  himself  who  said  in  1859  (7th  ed.):  cur  omissum  sit, 
facile  cllctu;  cur  addition,  viz  dixeris.  But  the  omission  in  the  Sinaitic  MS. 
has  caused  him  to  change  his  opinion  (8th  ed.).  The  rejection  can  be 
easily  understood,  as  the  Gospel  history  does  not  contain  any  appearance 
of  an  angel  in  the  period  which  followed  these  first  days.  It  would  be 
very  difficult,  on  the  contrary,  to  account  for  the  addition.  Weiss  and  Keil 
allege  the  words  of  Matt.  xxvi.  64.  But  there  is  no  resemblance  either  in 
situation  or  thought  between  that  passage  and  this  one,  which  can  explain 
such  an  importation  ;  and  I  persist  in  thinking,  with  the  Tischendorf  of 
1859,  that  the  rejection  is  much  more  easily  explained  than  the  addition. 
Jesus  means  to  say  that  heaven,  which  was  opened  at  the  time  of  His 
baptism,  is  not  closed.  The  communication  re-established  between  heaven 
and  earth  continues,  and  the  two  regions  form  for  the  future  only 
one,  so  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  one  communicate  with  those  of  the 
other ;  comp.  Eph.  i.  10  and  Col.  i.  20.  The  expression  ascend  and  descend 
is  a  very  clear  allusion  to  the  vision  of  Jacob  (Gen.  xxviii.  12, 13).  There 
it  represented  the  continual  protection  of  divine  providence,  and  of  its 
invisible  agents  assured  to  the  patriarch.     What  the  disciples  are  about  to 

>  it  B  L  It.  Cop.  Orig.  omit  on-'  apn,  which  is  read  by  T.  R.  with  all  the  other  Mjj.,  the 
Mnn.,  Syr.,  etc. 


chap.  i.  52.  337 

behold  from  now  on  will  bo  a  higher  realization  of  the  truth  represented 
by  that  ancient  symbol.  Jesus  certainly  does  not  mean  to  speak  of  certain 
appearances  of  angels  which  occurred  at  the  close  of  His  life.  The  ques- 
tion is  of  a  phenomenon  which  from  this  moment  is  to  continue  uninter- 
ruptedly. Most  moderns,  putting  themselves  at  the  opposite  spiritualistic 
extreme  to  the  literal  interpretation,  see  here  only  an  emblem  of  the 
heavenly  and  holy  character  of  the  daily  activity  of  Jesus  and,  as  Liicke 
and  Meyer  say,  of  the  living  communion  between  God  and  His  organ,  in 
which  the  divine  forces  and  revelations  are  concentrated.  Reuss  says, 
with  the  same  meaning:  "Angels  are  the  divine  perfections  common  to 
the  two  persons  .  .  .,"  together  with  this  observation  :  "The  literal  expla- 
nation would  here  be  as  poor  as  it  is  absurd."  Luthardt  (following 
Hofmann) :  "  the  (personified)  forces  of  the  Divine  Spirit."  If  the  expla- 
nation of  the  Fathers  was  too  narrow,  that  of  the  moderns  is  too  broad. 
There  is  no  passage  where  the  spiritual  activity  of  Jesus  is  referred,  even 
symbolically,  to  the  ministry  of  angels.  It  is  derived  from  the  Spirit 
(ver.  32 ;  iii.  34),  or,  still  more  commonly,  from  the  Father  dwelling  and 
acting  in  Jesus  (vi.  57).  Angels  are  the  instruments  of  the  divine  force  in 
the  domain  of  nature  (see  the  angel  of  the  waters,  Apoc.  xvi.  5 ;  of  the 
fire,  Apoc.  xiv.  18).  This  expression  refers,  therefore,  to  phenomena,  which, 
while  taking  place  in  the  domain  of  nature,  are  due  to  a  causality  superior 
to  the  laws  of  nature.  Could  Jesus  characterize  His  miracles  more  clearly 
without  naming  them?  It  is  also  the  only  sense  which  connects  itself 
with  what  has  just  passed,  even  at  this  moment,  between  Nathanael  and 
Himself:  "Thou  believest  because  of  this  wonder  of  omniscience ;  this  is 
only  the  prelude  of  more  remarkable  signs  of  the  same  kind."  By  this 
Jesus  means  the  works  of  power  of  which  the  event  that  follows,  the 
miracle  of  Cana,  will  be  the  first  example  (from  now  on).  This  explana- 
tion is  confirmed,  moreover,  by  the  remarkable  parallel,  Matt.  viii.  9,  10. 
It  is  difficult  to  explain  why  the  angels  who  ascend  are  placed  before  those 
who  descend.  Is  it  simply  owing  to  a  reminiscence  of  Genesis  ?  But  there, 
there  was  a  special  reason  :  Jacob  must  understand  that  the  angels  were 
already  near  him  at  the  moment  when  he  was  receiving  that  revelation. 
According  to  Meyer  and  Liicke,  Jesus  would  here  also  mean  that,  at  the 
moment  when  the  "you  shall  see"  shall  take  place,  this  relation  with 
heaven  shall  be  already  in  full  activity.  I  think,  rather,  that  the  angels 
are  here  presented  by  Jesus  as  an  army  grouped  around  their  chief,  the 
Son  of  man,  who  says  to  one,  Go,  and  to  another,  Do  this.  These  servants 
ascend  first,  to  seek  power  in  the  presence  of  God;  afterwards,  they 
descend  again  to  accomplish  the  work. 

Were  not  these  two  allusions,  one  to  the  name  of  Israel  (ver.  48),  the 
other  to  the  dream  of  Jacob,  suggested  by  the  sight  of  the  very  localities 
through  which  Jesus  was,  at  this  moment,  passing?  He  was  going  from 
Judea  to  Galilee,  either  by  the  valley  of  the  Jordan  or  by  one  of  the  two 
plateaus  which  extend  along  that  valley  on  the  east  and  the  west.  Now 
Bethel  was  on  the  eastern  plateau,  the  very  locality  in  which  Jacob's  dream 
had  occurred,  and  whose  name  perpetuated  the  remembrance  of  that 
22 


338  FIRST   PART. 

event ;  on  the  eastern  plateau  Mahanaim  was  situated  (the  double  camp  of 
angels)  and  the  ford  of  Jabbok,  two  places  which  equally  recalled  appear- 
ances of  angels  (Gen.  xxxii.  1,  2  and  24  fl'.).  It  is  possible  that,  in  passing 
through  these  places  which  were  classic  for  every  Israelitish  heart,  Jesus 
conversed  with  His  disciples  concerning  those  scenes  precisely  which  they 
recalled,  and  that  this  circumstance  was  the  occasion  of  the  figure  which 
He  makes  use  of  at  this  moment. 

What  are  the  purpose  and  meaning  of  the  expression  :  Son  of  man,  by 
which  Jesus  here  describes  Himself?  We  examine  this  question  here 
only  in  its  relation  to  the  context  (see  the  following  appendix).  It  is 
manifest  that  this  title  has  a  relation  to  the  two  titles  which  Nathanael 
has  just  given  to  Jesus.  This  is  intended  to  make  His  disciples  sensible  of 
the  fact  that,  besides  His  particular  relation  to  God  and  to  Israel,  He 
sustains  a  third  no  less  essential  one,  His  relation  to  the  whole  of 
humanity.  It  is  to  this  last  that  this  third  title  refers.  By  making  this 
designation  His  habitual  title  and  by  avoiding  the  use  of  the  title  of  Christ, 
which  had  a  very  marked  political  and  particularistic  hue,  Jesus  wished 
from  the  first  to  establish  His  ministry  on  its  true  and  broad  foundation, 
already  laid  by  that  saying  of  His  forerunner :  "  who  takes  away  the  sin 
of  the  world."  His  task  was  not,  as  Nathanael  imagined,  to  found  the 
Israelitish  monarchy :  it  was  to  save  the  world.  He  did  not  come  to 
complete  the  theocratic  drama,  but  to  bring  to  its  consummation  the 
history  of  man. 

This  title,  thus,  completes  the  two  others ;  the  three  relations  of  Jesus  to 
God,  to  men,  and  to  the  people  of  Israel  exhaust,  indeed,  His  life  and  His 
history. 

The  Son  of  Man. 

Jesus  designates  Himself  here,  for  the  first  time,  by  the  name  Son  of  man,  and 
it  is  quite  probable  that  this  occasion  was  really  the  first  on  which  He  assumed  this 
title.  We  find  it  thirty-nine  times  in  the  Synoptics  (by  connecting  the  parallels: 
most  frequently  in  Matt,  and  Luke)  ;  ten  times  in  John  (i.  52;  iii.  13,  14;  v.  27 
(without  the  article);  vi.  27,  53,  62;  viii.  28;  xii.  23,  34;  xiii.  31).  Three 
very  different  opinions  prevail  respecting  the  meaning,  the  origin  and  the 
purpose  of  this  designation.  We  can,  however,  arrange  these  in  two  principal 
classes. 

I.  Some  think  that  Jesus  here  borrows  from  the  Old  Testament  a  title  in  some 
measure  technical,  which  was  adapted  to  designate  Him  either  as  prophet — there 
would  thus  be  an  illusion  to  the  name  son  of  man  by  which  God  often  designates 
Ezekiel,  when  addressing  His  word  to  him — or  as  Messiah,  in  allusion  to  Dan.  vii. 
13:  "And  I  saw  one  like  unto  a  son  of  man  coming  on  the  clouds  of  heaven." 
This  Messianic  prophecy  had  become  popular  in  Israel,  to  such  an  extent  that 
the  Messiah  had  received  the  name  Anani,  'JJ>*»  the  man  of  the  clouds.  It  would 
thus  be  natural  to  suppose  that  Jevsus  made  choice  of  this  term  as  in  a  popular 
way  designating  his  Messianic  function  ;  the  more  so,  as  there  exists  a  saying  of 
Jesus,  in  which  He  solemnly  recalls  this  description  of  Daniel,  applying  it  to 
Himself,  Matt.  xxvi.  64 :  "  Henceforth  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  man  seated  at  the 


chap.  i.  52.  339 

right  liaml  of  power  and  coming  on  the  clouds  of  heaven."  Of  these  two  alleged 
allusions,  the  first  cannot  be  sustained.  For  it  is  not  as  a  prophet  that  God  calls 
Eztkiel  son  of  man,  but  as  a  creature  completely  powerless  to  perform  the  divine 
work  of  which  he  is  inviting  him  to  become  the  agent — thus,  as  a  man.  Would 
it  not  be  contrary  to  all  logic  to  maintain  that,  because  God  on  one  occasion  lias 
called  a  prophet  son  of  man,  it  follows  that  this  name  is  the  equivalent  of  the  title 
prophet.1 

The  allusion  to  Daniel,  as  the  foundation  of  this  peculiar  name  of  Jesus,  is 
admitted  by  almost  all  modern  interpreters,  Liic/ce,  Week,  Euald,  Hilgenfeld,  Renan, 
Strauss,  Meyer,  Keil,  Weiss,  etc.  This  is  also,  apparently,  the  opinion  of  M. 
Wabnitz. 

If  the  question  were  this :  Did  Jesus,  in  designating  Himself  thus,  bring  together 
in  His  own  mind  this  name  and  the:  as  a  son  of  man,  of  Daniel?  it  would  seem 
difficult  to  deny  it,  at  least  as  to  the  time  when  He  proclaimed  Himself  the  Mes- 
siah in  reply  to  the  high-priest  before  the  Sanhedrim.  But  this  is  not  the 
question.  The  point  in  hand  is  to  determine  whether,  in  choosing  this  title  as 
His  habitual  name,  as  His  title  by  predilection,  Jesus  meant  to  say :  "lam  the 
Messiah  announced  by  Daniel."  As  for  myself,  I  think  that  this  name  is  rather 
an  immediate  creation  of  His  own  heart,  with  which  He  was  inspired  by  the 
profound  feeling  of  what  He  was  for  humanity.  The  following  are  the  reasons 
which  impel  me  to  reject  the  first  view;  and  to  prefer  the  second  to  it:  1.  The 
borrowings  of  Jesus  from  the  O.  T.  have,  in  general,  a  character  of  formal 
accommodation  rather  than  that  of  a  real  imitation.  The  idea  always  springs  up  as 
perfectly  original  from  His  heart  and  mind ;  and  if  He  connects  it  with  some 
saying  of  Scripture,  it  is  that  He  may  give^  it  support  with  His  hearers,  rather 
than  that  He  may  cite  it  as  a  source.  How,  then,  could  the  name  of  which  Jesus, 
by  preference,  makes  use  to  designate  His  relation  to  humanity  be  the  product  of 
a  servile  imitation  ?  If  anything  must  have  come  forth  from  the  depths  of  His 
own  consciousness,  it  is  this  name.  2.  Throughout  the  whole  course  of  the  Gospel 
of  John,  Jesus,  as  we  shall  see,  carefully  avoids  proclaiming  Himself  as  the  Messiah, 
XpioToc,  before  the  people,  because  He  knows  too  well  the  political  meaning  com- 
monly attached  to  this  term,  and  that  the  least  misunderstanding  on  this  point 
would  have  been  immediately  fatal  to  His  work.  He  makes  use,  therefore,  of  all 
kinds  of  circumlocutions  to  avoid  designating  Himself  as  the  Messiah  :  comp.  viii. 
24,  25 ;  x.  24,  25,  etc.  Comp.  also,  in  the  Synoptics,  Luke  iv.  41  ;  ix.  21,  where  he 
forbids  the  demons  and  His  disciples  to  declare  Him  to  be  the  Christ.  And  in 
direct  contradiction  to  this  procedure,  He  would  have  chosen,  for  His  habitual 
name,  a  designation  to  which  the  popular  opinion  had  attached  this  sense  of 
Messiah  !  3.  Two  passages  in  John  prove,  moreover,  that  the  name  Son  of  man 
was  not  generally  applied  to  the  Messiah  :  xii.  34,  where  the  people  ask  Jesus 
who  this  personage  is  whom  He  designates  by  the  name  Son  of  man  (see  the 
exegesis) ;  and  v.  27,  where  Jesus  says  that  the  Father  has  committed  the  judg- 
ment to  Him  because  Pie  is  Son  of  man.  Certainly,  if  this  expression  had  here 
meant:  the  Messiah,  the  article  the  could  not  have  been  wanting  It  was  neces- 
sary, in  that  case,  since  the  question  was  of  a  personage  well-known  and  designated 
under  this  name.     Without  the  article,  there  is  here  a  mere  indication  of  quality  : 

1This  explanation  presented  by  Vcrnes,  been  well  refuted  in  the  article  of  Wabnitz, 
»nd  up  to  a  certain  point  by  Wcizsacker,  has       Rcvuc  thiol.,  Oct.  1874,  pp.  1C5  f. 


340  FIRST   TART. 

GoJ  makes  Him  judge  of  men  as  having  the  quality  of  man.  Besides,  let  us  not 
forget  that  in  Daniel  judgment  is  exercised,  not,  as  Renan  wrongty  says,  by  the 
Son  of  man,  but  by  Jehovah  Himself;  and  it  is  only  after  this  act  is  wholly 
finished,  that  the  Son  of  man,  to  whom  the  title  is  given,  appears  on  the  clouds.1 
4.  In  the  Synoptics,  also,  there  are  passages  where  the  meaning  Messiah  does  not 
suit  the  term  Son  of  man.  It  is  sufficient  to  cite  Matt.  xvi.  13,  15,  where  Jesus 
asks  His  disciples:  "Who  do  men  say  that  I,  the  Son  of  Man,  am?  .  .  .  And 
you,  who  do  you  say  that  1  am  ?  "  Had  this  term  been  equivalent  to  Messiah, 
would  not  the  first  question  contain  an  intolerable  tautology,  and  would  not 
IMlzmann  have  ground  for  asking  how  Jesus,  after  having  designated  Himself  a 
hundred  times  as  Son  of  Man,  could  still  propose  to  His  disciples  this  question, 
"  Whom  do  you  take  me  to  be?"  5.  The  appearance  of  the  Son  of  man  in  the 
prophecy  of  Daniel  has  an  exclusively  eschatological  bearing.  The  question  is  of 
the  glorious  establishment  of  the  final  kingdom.  Now  one  cannot  comprehend 
how  from  such  a  representation,  especially,  Jesus  could  have  derived  the  title 
of  which  He  makes  use  to  designate  His  person  during  the  period  of  His  earthly 
abasement.  But  one  can  easily  understand  that,  when  this  title  had  once  been 
adopted  by  Him  for  other  reasons,  He  should  have  made  express  allusion  to  this 
term  employed  by  Daniel,  at  the  solemn  moment  when,  before  the  Sanhedrim,  He 
wished  to  affirm  His  glorious  return  and  His  character  as  judge  of  His  judges. 
Let  us  add,  finally,  that  Daniel  had  not  said  :  I  saw  the  Son  of  man,  or  even 
a  Son  of  man,  but  vaguely  :  like  [the  figure  of  ]  a  son  of  man  ;  and  could  Jesus 
have  derived  from  such  a  vague  expression  His  title  of  Son  of  man  ?  6.  If  we 
believe  the  common  exegesis,  the  term  Son  of  God  had  the  sense  of  Messiah. 
Now,  according  to  the  same  exegesis,  this  also  is-the  meaning  of  the  term  Son  of 
man,  and  it  would  follow  from  this  that  these  two  titles,  which  are  evidently  anti- 
thetic, would  both  have  the  same  sense2 — a  thing  which  is  impossible.  They  do 
not,  either  the  one  or  the  other,  properly  designate  the  office  of  the  Messiah,  but 
rather  two  aspects  of  the  Messianic  personage,  which  are  complementary  of  each 
other. 

II.  We  are  led  thus  to  the  second  class  of  interpretations,  that  which  finds  in 
this  title  a  spontaneous  expression  of  the  consciousness  which  Jesus  had  of  Him- 
self— some  finding  the  feeling  of  His  greatness  expressed  in  it,  and  others,  the 
feeling  of  His  humiliation. 

1.  There  is  no  longer  any  need  of  refuting  the  explanation  of  Paulus  and 
Fritzsche,  according  to  which  Jesus  simply  meant  to  say  :  This  individual  whom 
you  see  before  you  •  homo  iUe  quern  bene  nostis.  Jesus  would  not,  by  so  exceptional 
a  term,  have  paraphrased  more  than  fifty  times  the  simple  pronoun  of  the  first 
person.    "       ,  , 

2.  Chrysostom,  Thohieh  and  others  explain  this  title  by  a  deliberate  antithesis  to 
the  feeling  which  Jesus  had  of  His  own  essential  sonship  to  God.  To  choose,  as 
His  characteristic  name,  the  title  of  descendant  of  the  human  race,  He  must  feel 

1  Undoubtedly,  in  the  passage  of  the  Book  of  ease,  if  these  passages  were  entirely  authen- 

Enoeh  (c.  37-71)  the  Messiah  is  several  times  tic,  the  passages  in  John  prove  that  this  des- 

called  Son  of  man,  but  not  the  Son  of  Man  ;  ignation  was  not  yet  a  popular  one. 
comp.  Westcott.    Besides,  this  passage  is  sus-  2 To  this   impossible  identification  all  the 

peeted  of   Christian    interpolations  (Oehler,  efforts  tend  which  Kc.ini  makes  to  attenuate 

art.  Messias,  in   Herzog's  Encyct.  (1st  ed.);  the  difference  between  these  two  terms,  II., 

Keim,   Gesck.  Jesu  (II.  p.  69).    But  in  any  p.  388. 


chap.  i.  52.  341 

Himself  a  stranger  by  nature  to  that  race.     This  explanation  is  ingenious:  but 
only  too  much  so  for  the  simplicity  of  the  feeling  of  Jesus. 

3.  Keerl  thought  that  Jesus  meant  to  designate  Himself  thereby  as  the  eternal 
man,  pre-existent  in  God,  of  whom  the  Rabbis  spoke,  the  Messiah  differing  from 
that  heavenly  man  only  through  the  flesh  and  blood  with  which  He  clothed  Him- 
self when  He  came  to  the  earth.  But  no  others  than  the  Scribes  could  have  at- 
tached such  a  sense  to  this  title  which  Jesus  habitually  used,  and  nothing  in  His 
teaching  indicates  that  He  Himself  shared  in  that  Rabbinical  opinion.  More- 
over, the  term  Son  of  man  would  be  very  ill  adapted  to  a  heavenly  man. 

4.  Gess  expresses  an  analogous  idea,1  but  less  extra-Biblical.  According  to  him, 
Jesus  wished  to  express  thereby  the  idea  of  "the  divine  majesty  as  having  ap- 
peared in  the  form  of  human  life."  He  rests  upon  the  passages  in  which  divine 
functions  are  ascribed  to  the  Son  of  man,  as  such  ;  thus  the  pardon  of  sins  (Matt. 
ix.  6,  and  parallels),  lordship  over  the  angels  (Matt.  xiii.  41),  judgment  (Matt. 
xvi.  27,  xxv.  31,  John  v.  27).  But,  if  the  destiny  of  man  is  to  be  exalted  even 
to  participate  in  the  functions  and  works  of  God,  there  is  nothing  in  the  acts  cited 
which  surpasses  that  sublime  destiny,  and  consequently  the  limits  of  the  human 
life  when  it  has  reached  the  summit  of  its  perfection.  Besides,  is  the  idea  of  the 
Kenosis,  which  Gess  adopts,  compatible  with  that  of  the  divine  majesty  realized 
in  Jesus — in  Jesus  in  the  form  of  the  human  life  ? 

5.  De  Wette  and  others  think,  on  the  contrary,  that  by  this  name  Jesus  meant 
to  make  prominent  the  weakness  of  His  earthly  state.  It  seems  to  us  that  the 
words  of  v.  27  are  altogether  opposed  to  this  sense.  It  is  not  because  of  the  mean- 
ness of  His  earthly  state,  that  the  judgment  is  committed  to  Christ. 

6.  Only  one  explanation  remains  for  us,  in  itself  the  most  simple  and  natural 
one,  which  in  various  forms  has  been  given  by  Bbhme,  Neander,  Ebrard,  Okhausen, 
Beyschlag,  Holtzmann,  Wittichcn,  Hojmann,  Westcott,  Schaff,  etc.,  which  we  have 
already  set  forth  in  the  first  edition  of  this  work,  aud  which  we  continue  to  de- 
fend. Jesus  meant  to  designate  by  this  title,  in  the  first  place,  His  complete  par- 
ticipation in  our  human  nature.  A  son  of  man  is  not  the  son  of  such  or  such  a 
man,  but  an  offspring  of  the  human  race  of  which  He  presents  an  example ;  a 
legitimate  representative.  It  is  in  this  sense  that  this  expression  is  used  in  Rs. 
viii.  5 :  "  What  is  man  that  thou  art  mindful  of  him,  and  the  son  of  man  that 
thou  visitest  him?"  The  same  is  true  in  the  frequent  addresses  of  the  Lord  to 
Ezekiel.  It  is  also  the  same  in  Dan.  vii.  13,  where  the  being  who  appeared  like 
a  Son  of  man  represents  the  human,  gentle,  holy  character  of  the  Messianic 
kingdom,  just  as  the  wild  beasts,  which  preceded  him,  were  figures  of  the  violent, 
harsh,  despotic  character  of  earthly  empires.  Jesus,  therefore,  above  all,  obeyed 
the  instinct  of  His  love  in  adopting  this  designation  of  His  person,  which  ex- 
pressed the  feeling  of  His  perfect  honiogeneousness  with  the  human  family  of 
which  He  had  made  Himself  a  member.  This  name  was,  as  it  were,  the  theme 
of  which  those  words  of  John:  "the  Word  was  made  flesh,"  are  the  paraphrase. 
But  Jesus  does  not  merely  name  Himself:  a  son  of  man  ;  a  true  man  ;  He  names 
Himself  the  Son  of  man ;  He  declares  Himself,  thereby,  the  true  man,  the  only 
normal  representative  of  the  human  type.  Even  in  affirming,  therefore,  His 
equality  with  us,  He  affirms,  by  means  of  the  article,  the,  His  superiority  over  all 
the  other  members  of  the  human  family,  who  are  simply  sons  of  men ;  comp. 

1  Christi  Zeugniss  von  seiner  Person,  1870. 


342  FIRST   PART. 

Mk.  iii.  28 ;  Eph.  iii.  5.  To  designate  Himself  thus  was,  indeed,  to  affirm,  yet 
only  implicitly,  His  dignity  as  Messiah.  He  expressed  the  idea,  while  yet  avoid- 
ing the  word  whose  meaning  was  falsified.  Without  saying  :  "  I  am  the  Christ," 
He  said  to  every  man :  *-  Look  on  me,  and  thou  shalt  see  what  thou  oughtest  to 
have  been,  and  what,  through  me,  thou  mayest  yet  become."  He  succeeded  thus 
in  attaining  two  equally  important  ends:  to  inaugurate  the  pure  Messianism 
separated  from  all  political  alloy,  and  to  present  Himself  as  the  chief  of  a  kingdom 
of  God,  comprehending,  not  only  Israel,  but  all  the  human  race.  This  is  what 
has  led  Bolime  to  say  (  Versuch  das  Geheimniss  des  3Ienschensokns  zu  enthiillcn,  1839), 
that  the  design  of  Jesus  in  choosing  this  designation  was  to  de-judaize  the  idea  of 
the  Messiah, 

We  see  with  what  admirable  wisdom  Jesus  acted  in  the  choice  of  this  designa- 
tion, the  creation  of  His  own  consciousness  and  of  His  inner  life.  It  was  His  love 
which  guided  Him  wonderfully  in  this  matter,  as  it  did  in  everything.  Perhaps 
His  inward  tact  was  directed  in  this  choice  by  the  recollection  of  the  most  ancient 
of  all  the  prophecies — the  one  which  was  the  germ  of  the  tree  of  the  Messianic 
revelations :  "  The  seed  of  the  woman  shall  bruise  the  serpent's  head."  As  the 
term  avOpunoc.  man,  refers  equally  to  the  two  sexes,  and  as  the  woman  represents 
the  human  nature,  rather  than  the  human  individuality,  the  term  Son  of  man  is 
not  far  removed  from  the  term  seed  of  the  woman.  Jesus  would  designate  Him- 
self, thus,  as  the  normal  man,  charged  with  accomplishing  the  victory  of  humanity 
over  its  own  enemy  and  the  enemy  of  God.1 

THIRD  SECTION. 

II.  1-11. 

The  First  Miracle. — Strengthening  of  Faith. 

Jesus,  after  having  been  declared  by  John  to  be  the  Messiah,  manifested 
Himself  as  such  to  His  first  disciples ;  an  utterance  of  miraculous  knowl- 
edge, in  particular,  had  revealed  the  intimate  relation  which  united  Him 
with  God.  He  now  displays  His  glory  before  their  eyes  in  a  first  act  of 
omnipotence;  and  their  faith,  embracing  this  fact  of  an  entirely  new 
order,  begins  to  raise  itself  to  the  height  of  its  new  object.  Such  is  (ac- 
cording to  ver.  11),  the  meaning  of  this  passage. 

His  first  miracle  takes  place  in  the  family  circle.    It  is,  as  it  were,  the 

1  In  the  idea  which  we  have  just  set,  forth  in  humanity."  Colani:  "That  man  who  is 
all  the  explanations  of  the  authors  mentioned  the  Messiah,  but  who  does  not  wish  to  desig- 
above,  who  are  different  from  one  another  in  nate  himself  expressly  as  such."  llofmann: 
certain  unimportant  points,  as  it  seems  to  me,  "  the  man  in  whom  all  the  history  of  human- 
converge.  Baur :  "A  simple  man,  to  whom  ity  must  have  its  end."  Neander :  "  He  who 
cling  all  the  miseries  which  can  be  affirmed  realizes  the  idea  of  humanity."  Bohme:  "the 
of  any  man  whatever."  Schenkel :  "  the  rep-  universal  Messiah."  Westcott :  "a  true  man 
resentative  of  the  poor."  Holtzmann  :  "  the  and,  at  the  same  time,  the  representative  of 
one  to  whom  may  be  applied,  in  the  highest  the  race  in  whom  are  united  the  virtual  po\»- 
degree,  everything  which  can  be  said  of  all  ers  of  the  whole  of  humanity."  I  am  aston- 
other  men,"  or,  "  the  indispensable  organic  ished  to  see  this  explanation  lightly  set  asiuo 
centre  of  the  kingdom  of  God  in  humanity."  by  Wabnltz  in  these  words:  "It  will  be  de- 
Wittichen:  "the  perfect  realization  of  the  sirable  thus  to  set  aside  from  the  immediate 
idea  of  man,  with  the  mission  of  realizing  it  historical  sense  of  our  title  .  .  .  etc." 


chap.  ii.  1.  343 

point  of  connection  between  the  obscurity  of  the  private  life,  to  which 
Jesus  has  confined  Himself  until  now,  and  the  public  activity  which  He 
is  about  to  begin.  All  the  sweet  and  amiable  qualities  by  which  He  has, 
until  now,  adorned  the  domestic  hearth,  display  themselves  once  more, 
but  with  a  new  brightness.  It  is  the  divine  impress  which  His  last  foot- 
step leaves  in  this  inner  domain;  it  is  His  royal  farewell  to  His  relation  as 
son,  as  brother,  as  kinsman. 

Ver.  1 :  "And  the  third  day  there  was  a  marriage  in  Cana  of  Galilee,  and  the 
mother  of  Jesus  ivas  there."  A  distance  of  somewhat  more  than  twenty 
leagues,  in  a  straight  line,  separates  the  place  where  John  was  baptizing, 
from  Nazareth,  to  which  Jesus  was  probably  directing  His  course.  This 
journey  requires  three  days'  walking.  Weiss,  Keii,  and  others,  think  that 
the  first  of  these  three  days  was  the  day  after  that  on  which  Jesus  had 
taken  the  resolution  to  depart  (i.  44).  But  the  resolution  indicated  by 
yOsfo/acv  has  certainly  been  mentioned  in  i.  44  only  because  it  was  executed 
at  that  very  moment.  The  first  day,  according  to  the  natural  interpre- 
tation of  the  text,  is,  therefore,  that  which  is  indicated  in  i.  44  as  the 
day  of  departure.  The  second  is  understood ;  it  was,  perhaps,  the  one 
on  which  the  meeting  with  Nathanael  took  place.  On  the  third,  the 
travelers  could  arrive  at  a  quite  early  hour  in  the  region  of  Cana  and 
Nazareth.  It  was  the  sixth  day  since  the  one  on  which  John  had  given 
his  first  testimony  before  the  Sanhedrim  (i.  19). — It  is  affirmed  that  there 
are  at  the  present  time  in  Galilee,  two  places  of  the  name  of  Cana.  One 
is  said  to  be  called  Kana-el-Djelil  {Cana  of  Galilee),  and  to  be  situated  about 
two  hours  and  a  half  to  the  north  of  Nazareth  ;  the  other  is  called  Kefr~ 
Kenna  {village  Cana) ;  it  is  situated  a  league  and  a  half  eastward  of  Naza- 
reth. It  is  there,  that,  ever  since  the  eighth  century,  tradition  places  the 
event  which  is  the  subject  of  our  narrative.  Since  Robinson  brought  the  first 
into  vogue,  the  choice  has  been  ordinarily  in  its  favor  {Ritter,  Meyer) ;  this  is 
the  view  of  Renan  {Vie  de  Jesus,  p.  75).  Hengstenberg  almost  alone,  has 
decided  for  the  second,  for  the  reason  that  the  first,  as  he  says,  is  nothing 
but  a  ruin,  and  has  no  stable  population,  capable  of  preserving  a  sure  tra- 
dition respecting  the  name  of  the  place.  What  if  the  name  were  itself 
only  a  fable.1    In  any  case,  the  situation  of  Kefr-Kenna  answers  better 

*  Robinson  [Biblical  Researches,  ii.  pp.  194,  the  real  name  of  the  place  pointed  out  to  Rob- 

195,  204,  f.),  relates  that  he  was  guided  by  inson  is  Khurbet-Cana,  and  that  it  was  only 

a  Christian   Arab  named   Abu  Nasir,  from  from  Arabian  politeness  (aus  arabischer  Hof- 

Nazareth    to  the  height   of    the    Wely  Is-  lichkeit),  that  Robinson's  guide,  yielding  at 

mail,  whence  one  has  a  magnificent  view  length  to  the  pressing  questions  of  the  cele- 

of    all    the    surrounding  regions,  and   that  brated    traveler,    pronounced    the    desired 

this  Arab  showed  him,  from  that  point,  at  name  of  Kana-el-Djelil,  which  does  not  at  all 

three  leagues'  distance  towards  the  north-  exist  in  the  region.    Such  is  also  the  result 

west,  a    place  called    Kana-el-DJelil,  in   the  of  the  work  published  in  the  Palestine  Ex- 

nameof  which  he  recognized  theCanaofOali-  ploration  Fund,  No.  III.,  1869,  by  J.  Zeller, 

Zee  of  our  Gospel.  On  the  other  hand,  here  are  missionary  at   Nazareth,  who  gives  a  very 

the  contents  of  a  note  which  I  made  at  Naza-  precise  description  of  the  two  localities  in 

reth  itself,  Sept.  2G,  1872,  after  a  conversation  dispute.    He  shows  how  the  Christian  tradi- 

with  a  competent  European  who  accompanied  tion  has  always  connected  itself  with  Kofr- 

us  to  the  Wely  Ismail.    He  declared  to  us  that  Kenna,  where  considerable  ruins  are  found, 


344  FIRST    TART. 

to  our  narrative.  The  date  :  "  the  third  day,"  covers  in  fact,  the  whole  of 
the  following  passage,  as  far  as  ver.  11 ;  consequently,  the  miracle  must 
have  taken  place  on  the  very  day  of  the  arrival.  Now  even  if  he  did  not 
arrive  at  Nazareth  until  towards  evening  of  the  third  day,  Jesus  might  still 
have  repaired  hefore  night  to  the  very  near  village  of  Kefr-Kenna — this 
would  have  been  impossible  in  the  case  of  the  Cana  of  Robinson — or  even, 
what  is  more  probable,  He  reached  Kefr-Kenna  directly  from  the  south, 
without  having  passed  through  Nazareth.  If  Nathanael  was  coming  from 
Cana  (xxi.  2)  at  the  time  when  Philip  met  him,  he  might  inform  Jesus  of 
the  celebration  of  the  wedding,  and  of  the  presence  of  His  family  in  that 
place — a  circumstance  which  induced  Jesus  to  betake  Himself  thither 
directly.  Let  us  add  that  the  defining  object  of  Galilee,  which  recurs  in 
iv.  46  and  xxi.  2,  must  have  been  a  standing  designation,  intended  to  dis- 
tinguish this  Cana  from  another  place  of  the  same  name,  situated  outside 
of  Galilee  (comp.  Josh.  xix.  28,  the  place  of  this  name  situated  on  the  bor- 
ders of  Phoenicia).  This  designation  would  have  meaning  only  as  there 
was  but  one  place  of  this  name  in  Galilee. 

The  name  of  the  mother  of  Jesus  is  not  indicated,  yet  not  precisely 
because  John  supposes  the  name  to  be  known  to  the  readers  by  tradition. 
It  might  have  been  added,  even  in  that  case,  but  because  it  is  in  her  char- 
acter of  mother  of  Jesus  that  Mary  is  to  play  the  principal  part  in  the  fol- 
lowing narrative.  There  is  no  well-founded  reason  to  suppose,  with  Ewald, 
Weiss,  and  Renan,  that  Mary  had  already  for  a  long  time  been  settled 
with  her  sons  at  Cana.  .How,  in  that  case,  should  not  Nathanael,  who 
was  of  Cana,  and  Jesus,  have  been  acquainted  with  each  other  before  their 
recent  meeting?  How  should  the  sisters  of  Jesus  have  been  still  dwelling 
in  Nazareth  (Mk..vi.  3)  ?  The  fact  that  it  is  not  said  that  Mary  and  her 
sons  had  repaired  from  Nazareth  to  Cana  because  of  the  wedding  evi- 
dently cannot  prove  anything.  The  expressions  of  ver.  1,  much  more 
naturally  imply  that  Mary  was  at  Cana  only  because  of  the  wedding  ;  (comp. 
besides,  Philip's  word  to  Nathanael,  i.  46  :  "  of  Nazareth"). 

Ver.  2.  "  Now  Jesus  also  was  bidden  to  the  marriage,  as  well  as  His  disciples." 
There  is  a  contrast  between  the  imperfect,  ivas  there,  which  is  used  in 
speaking  of  Mary,  and  the  aorist  was  bidden,  applied  to  Jesus  and  His 
disciples.  Jesus  was  bidden  only  on  His  arrival,  while  Mary,  at  that  time, 
was  already  there.  It  appears  from  all  these  points  that  the  family  in 
question  was  quite  closely  related  to  that  of  the  Lord ;  this  is  likewise 
proved  by  the  authoritative  attitude  which  Mary  assumes  in  the  following 
scene.  The  singular,  was  bidden,  is  owing  to  the  fact  that  the  disciples  were 
not  bidden  except  in  honor,  and,  as  it  were,  in  the  person,  of  their  Mas- 
ter. Rilliet,  with  some  commentators,  translates :  had  been  bidden.  But 
when?    Before  going  to  His  baptism  {Schleiermacher),  or  later,  through  a 

which    are  altogether  wanting  at  Khurbet-  side,  Robinson  and  Raumer  cite  Quaresmius, 

Cana;  then,  how  a  statement  of  the  chroni-  and  some  other  chroniclers,  in  favor  of  the 

cler    Seawulf  {U°3),  and,  finally,  the  whole  hypothesis  of    Khurbet-Cana.     But  it  is  a 

account  of  Josephus  ( Vita,  15  and  10),  corre-  certain  fact  that  the  name  Kana-el-Djilil  no 

epond  only  with  Kefr-Kenna.    On  tho  other  longer  exists  at  the  present  day. 


chap.  ii.  2,  3.  345 

messenger?  Two  very  improbable  suppositions.  Moreover,  the  added 
words  :  as  well  as  His  disciples,  are  incompatible  with  this  meaning.  For 
they  could  not  have  been  invited  before  it  was  known  that  Jesus  had 
disciples. 

Ver.  3.  "'And  token  the  wine  failed,1  the  mother  of  Jesus  saith  to  Him :  They 
have  no  xvine."  2 — The  marriage  feasts  sometimes  continued  several  days, 
even  a  whole  week  (Gen.  xxix.  27 ;  Judg.  xiv.  15 ;  Tob.  ix.  12 ;  x.  1). 
The  failure  of  the  wine  is  commonly  explained  by  this  circumstance. 
However  this  may  be,  it  is  scarcely  possible  to  doubt  that  this  failure  was 
connected  with  the  unexpected  arrival  of  six  or  seven  guests,  Jesus  and 
His  disciples.  The  reading  of  the  Sinaitic  MS. :  "And  they  had  no  more 
wine,  for  the  wine  of  the  wedding-feast  was  entirely  consumed,"  is  evi- 
dently a  diluted  paraphrase  of  the  primitive  text?— What  does  Mary 
mean  by  saying  to  Jesus :  "  They  have  no  wine  ?  "  Bengel  and  Paulus  have 
thought  that  Mary  wished  to  induce  Jesus  to  withdraw  and  thus  to  give  the 
rest  of  the  company  the  signal  to  depart.  The  reply  of  Jesus  would  signify  : 
"  What  right  hast  thou  to  prescribe  to  me  ?  The  hour  for  leavinghas  not  yet 
come  for  me."  Such  an  explanation  has  no  need  to  be  refuted.  The  expres- 
sion "my  hour,"  always  used,  in  our  Gospel,  in  a  grave  and  solemn  sense, 
would  be  enough  to  make  us  feel  the  impossibility  of  it.  The  same  thing  is 
true  of  Calvin's  explanation,  according  to  which  Mary  wished  "  to  admonish 
Jesus  to  offer  some  religious  exhortation,  for  fear  that  the  company  might 
be  weaned,  and  also  courteously  to  cover  the  shame  of  the  bridegroom." 
This  expression,  "  They  have  no  wine,"  has  a  certain  analogy  to  the  mes- 
sage of  the  sisters  of  Lazarus :  "  He  whom  thou  lovest  is  sick."  It  is  cer- 
tainly a  tacit  request  for  assistance.  But  how  does  it  occur  to  Mary  to 
resort  to  Jesus  in  order  to  ask  His  aid  in  a  case  of  this  kind?  Does  she 
dream  of  a  miracle?  Meyer,  Weiss  and  Reuss  think  not;  for,  according  to 
ver.  11,  Jesus  had  not  yet  performed  any.  Mary,  thus,  would  only  think 
of  natural  aid,  and  the  reply  of  Jesus,  far  from  rejecting  this  request  as  an 
inconsiderate  claim,  would  mean  :  "  Leave  me  to  act!  I  have  in  my  pos- 
session means  of  which  thou  knowest  not,  and  whose  effect  thou  shalt  see 
as  soon  as  the  hour  appointed  by  my  Father  shall  have  struck."  After 
this,  the  order  of  Mary  to  the  servants,  "Bo  whatsoever  He  shall  say  to  you ," 
presents  no  further  difficulty.  But  this  explanation,  which  supposes  that 
Mary  asks  less  than  what  Jesus  is  disposed  to  do,  is  contradictory  to  the 
natural  meaning  of  the  words  "  What  is  (here  between  me  and  thee  ?  "  which 
lead  rather  to  the  supposition  of  an  encroachment  by  Mary  on  a  domain 
which  Jesus  reserves  exclusively  to  Himself,  an  inadmissible  interference 
in  His  office  as  Messiah.  Besides,  by  what  means  other  than  a  miracle 
could  Jesus  have  extricated  the  bridegroom  from  his  embarrassment? 
Meyer  gives  no  explanation  of  this  point.  Weiss  thinks  of  friends  (like 
Nathanael)  who  had  relations  at  Cana,  and  by  means  of  whom  Jesus  could 


1  K  reads  instead  of  vaT(pr]<ravTo<:  oipou:  k<u        some  documents  of  the  Itala  (a.  h.  ffs)  and 
ou'oi'  ovk    ei^oi"   on   crwcTcAterflr)   o  oieos   tou        Adopted  l>y  Tischondorf  in  the  8th  ed. 
ya^ou  tira  Aeyci,  a  reading  which  is  found  in  2  K  otfo?  ovk  eon,  instead  of  oiyov  ovk  t\ov<jiv. 


346  FIRST   TART. 

provide  a  remedy  for  the  condition  of  things.  But  -even  in  this  sense  we 
cannot  understand  the  answer  of  Jesus,  by  which  He  certainly  wishes  to 
cause  Mary  to  go  back  within  her  own  bounds,  beyond  which  she  had, 
consequently,  just  passed.  What  she  wished  to  ask  for,  is  therefore  a 
striking,  miraculous  aid  worthy  of  the  Messiah.  Whence  can  such  an 
idea  have  come  to  her  mind  ?  Hase  and  Tholuck  have  supposed  that  Jesus 
had  already  wrought  miracles  within  the  limits  of  His  family.  Ver.  11 
excludes  this  hypothesis.  LiicJce  amends  it,  by  saying  that  He  had  simply 
manifested,  in  the  perplexities  of  domestic  life,  peculiar  gifts  and  skill : 
one  of  those  convenient  middle-course  suggestions  which  are  frequently 
met  with  in  this  commentator  and  which  have  procured  for  him  such 
vigorous  censure  on  the  part  of  Baur.  It  affirms,  in  fact,  too  much  or  too 
little.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  state  of  extraordinary  exaltation  is  forgot- 
ten in  which,  at  this  moment,  that  whole  company,  and  especially  Mary, 
must  have  been.  Can  it  be  imagined  for  an  instant,  that  the  disciples  had 
not  related  everything  which  had  just  occurred  in  Judea,  the  solemn  declar- 
ations of  John  the  Baptist,  the  miraculous  scene  of  the  baptism  pro- 
claimed by  John,  the  proof  of  supernatural  knowledge  which  Jesus  had 
given  on  meeting  Nathanael,  finally  that  magnificent  promise  of  greater 
things  impending,  of  an  open  heaven,  of  angels  ascending  and  descend- 
ing, which  their  eyes  were  going  henceforth  to  behold  ?  How  should  not 
the  expectation  of  the  marvelous — that  seeking  after  miracles,  which  St. 
Paul  indicates  as  the  characteristic  feature  of  Jewish  piety — have  existed, 
at  that  moment,  in  all  those  who  were  present,  in  the  highest  degree  ? 
The  single  fact  that  Jesus' arrived  surrounded  by  disciples,  must  have  been 
sufficient  to  make  them  understand  that  a  new  phase  was  opening  at  that 
hour,  that  the  time  of  obscurity  and  retirement  had  come  to  its  end,  and 
that  the  period  of  Messianic  manifestations  was  about  to  begin.  Let  us 
add,  finally,  with  reference  to  Mary  herself,  the  mighty  waking  up  of 
recollections,  so  long  held  closely  in  her  maternal  heart,  the  return  of  her 
thoughts  to  the  marvelous  circumstances  which  accompanied  the  birth  of 
her  son.  The  hour  so  long  and  so  impatiently  waited  for  had,  then,  at 
last  struck !  Is  it  not  to  her,  Mary,  that  it  belongs  to  give  the  decisive 
signal  of  this  hour  ?  She  is  accustomed  to  obedience  from  her  Son ;  she 
does  not  doubt  that  He  will  act  at  her  suggestion.  If  the  words  of  Mary 
are  carried  back  to  this  general  situation,  we  easily  understand  that  what 
she  wishes  is  not  merely  aid  given  to  the  embarrassed  bridegroom,  but, 
on  this  occasion,  a.  brilliant  act  fitted  to  inaugurate  the  Messianic  royalty. 
On  the  occasion  of  this  failure  of  the  wine,  she  sees  the  heaven  opening, 
the  angel  descending,  a  marvelous  manifestation  exhibiting  itself  and 
opening  the  series  of  wonders.  Any  other  difficulty  in  life  would  have 
served  her  as  a  pretext  for  seeking  to  obtain  the  same  result:  "Thou 
art  the  Messiah:  it  is  time  to  show  thyself !  "  As  to  Jesus,  the  tempta- 
tion in  the  wilderness  is  here  seen  reproducing  itself  in  its  third  form 
(Luke  iv.  9).  He  is  invited  to  make  an  exhibition  of  His  miraculous 
power  by  passing  beyond  the  measure  strictly  indicated  by  the  provi- 
dential call.     It  is  what  He  can  no  more  do  at  the  prayer  of  His  mother 


chap.  ii.  4.  347 

than  at  the  suggestion  of  Satan  or  at  the  demand  of  the  Pharisees.  Hence 
the  tone  of  Jesus'  reply,  the  firmness  of  which  goes  even  to  the  point  of 
severity. 

Ver.  4.  "  Jesus  saith  to  her :  What  is  there  between  me  and  thee,  woman  f 
My  hour  is  not  yet  come."  Jesus  makes  Mary  sensible  of  her  incompetency 
in  the  region  into  which  she  intrudes.  The  career  on  which  He  has  just 
entered,  is  that  in  which  He  depends  only  on  His  Father;  His  motto 
henceforth  is :  My  Father  and  I.  Mary  must  learn  to  know  in  her 
son  the  servant  of  Jehovah,  of  Jehovah  only.  The  expression  "  What  is 
there  between  me  and  thee  ?  "  is  a  frequent  one  in  the  Old  Testament.  Comp. 
Judg.  xi.  12 ;  2  Sam.  xvi.  10  ;  1  Kings  xvii.  18  ;  2  Kings  iii.  13.  We  even 
meet  it,  sometimes,  in  profane  Greek  ;  thus  the  reply  of  a  Stoic  to  a  jester 
is  quoted,  who  asked  him,  at  the  moment  when  their  vessel  was  about  to 
sink,  whether  shipwreck  was  an  evil  or  not :  "  What  is  there  between  us 
and  thee,  O  man?  We  perish,  and  thou  permittest  thyself  to  jest !  " 
This  formula  signifies,  that  the  community  of  feeling  to  which  one  of  the 
interlocutors  appeals  is  rejected  by  the  other,  at  least  in  the  particular 
point  which  is  in  question.  Mary  had,  no  doubt,  well  understood  that  a 
great  change  was  being  wrought  in  the  life  of  her  son  ;  but,  as  often  hap- 
pens with  our  religious  knowledge,  she  had  not  drawn  from  this  grave 
fact  the  practical  consequence  which  concerned  her  personally.  And 
thus,  as  Biiumlein  says,  Jesus  finds  Himself  in  a  position  to  reject  the  in- 
fluence which  she  presumes  still  to  exercise  over  Him.  The  address  yvvai, 
woman,  is  thereby  explained.  In  the  language  in  which  Jesus  spoke,  as 
well  as  in  the  Greek  language,  this  term  involves  nothing  contrary  to  re- 
spect and  affection.  In  Dio  Cassius,  a  queen  is  accosted  by  Augustus  with 
this  expression.  Jesus  Himself  uses  it  in  addressing  His  mother  at  a 
moment  of  inexpressible  tenderness,  when,  from  His  elevation  on  the 
cross,  He  speaks  to  her  for  the  last  time,  xix.  2G.  Here  this  expression, 
entirely  respectful  though  it  may  be,  gives  Mary  to  understand,  that,  in 
the  sphere  on  which  Jesus  has  just  entered,  her  title  of  mother  has  no 
longer  any  part  to  play. 

"  Here  for  Mary,"  as  Luthardt  well  observes,  "  is  the  beginning  of  a 
painful  education."  The  middle  point  of  this  education  will  be  marked  by 
the  question  of  Jesus,  "  Who  is  my  mother,  and  who  are  my  brethren  f"  (Luke 
viii.  19  f.)  The  end  will  be  that  second  address :  Woman  (xix.  26),  which 
will  definitely  break  the  earthly  relation  between  the  mother  and  the  son. 
Mary  feels  at  this  moment,  for  the  first  time,  the  point  of  the  sword  which, 
at  the  foot  of  the  cross,  shall  pierce  through  her  heart.  After  having 
made  her  sensible  of  her  incompetency,  Jesus  gives  the  ground  of  His  re- 
fusal. The  words  :  "  My  hour  is  not  yet  come  "  have  been  understood  by 
Euthymius,  Meyer,  •Ilengstenberg,  Lange  and  Mggenbach  (Leben  des  Herru. 
Jesu,  p.  374),  in  a  very  restricted  sense  :  "the  hour  for  performing  the  de- 
sired miracle."  The  following  words  of  Mary  to  the  servants,  according 
to  this  view,  would  imply  two  things :  the  first,  that  Jesus  received  a  little 
later  from  His  Father  an  inward  sign  which  permitted  Him  to  comply 
with  His  mother's  wish ;  and  the  second,  that  by  a  gesture  or  a  word,  H© 


348  FIRST   PART. 

made  known  to  her  this  new  circumstance.  This  is  to  add  much  to  the 
text.  Besides,  how  could  Jesus,  before  having  received  any  indication  of 
His  Father's  will,  have  said  :  "  not  yet,"  a  word  which  would  necessarily 
mean  that  the  permission  will  be  granted  Him  later.  Finally,  this  weak- 
ened sense  which  is  here  given  to  the  expression  "my  hour  "  does  not  cor- 
respond with  the  solemn  meaning  which  is  attached  to  this  term  through- 
out our  whole  Gospel.  If  it  were  desired  to  hold  to  this  weakened  mean- 
ing, it  would  be  still  better  to  give  to  this  clause,  with  Gregory  of  Nazian- 
zum,  an  interrogative  turn  :  "  Is  not  the  hour  (of  my  emancipation,  of  my 
autonomy)  come  ?  "  Let  us  remark  that  the  expression  "  my  liour  "  is  here 
connected  with  the  verb  is  come,  as  in  all  the  passages  in  John  where  it  is 
taken  in  its  weightiest  sense  :  "  His  hour  was  not  yet  come  "  (vii.  30;  viii.  20, 
comp.  xiii.  1) ;  "  The  hour  is  come  "  (xii.  23;  xvii.  1).  His  hour,  in  all  these 
passages,  is  that  of  His  Messianic  manifestation,  especially  through  His 
death  and  through  the  glorification  which  should  follow  it.  The  analo- 
gous expression  my  time,  vii.  6,  is  also  applied  to  His  Messianic  manifesta- 
tion, but  through  the  royal  entry  into  Jerusalem.  This  is  the  meaning 
which  seems  to  me  to  prevail  here.  Jesus  makes  known  to  Mary,  impa- 
tient to  see  Him  mount  the  steps  of  His  throne,  that  the  hour  of  the 
inauguration  of  His  Messianic  royalty  has  not  yet  struck.  It  is  in  His 
capital,  Jerusalem,  in  His  palace,  the  Temple,  and  not  in  the  centre  of  His 
family,  that  His  solemn  manifestation  as  Messiah  must  take  place  (Mai. 
iii.  1 :  "  And  then  He  shall  enter  into  His  temple  ").  This  sense  of  the  ex- 
pression "  my  hour  "  could  not  be  strange  to  the  mind  of  Mary.  How 
many  times,  in  her  conversations  with  Jesus,  she  had  doubtless  herself 
used  this  expression  when  asking  Him:  Will  thine  hour  come  at  last? 
That  hour  was  the  one  towards  which  all  her  desire  as  an  Israelite  and  a 
mother  moved  forward.  Jesus  rejects  Mary's  request,  but  only  so  far  as 
it  has  something  of  ambition.  How  often  in  His  conversations,  He  replies 
less  to  the  question  which  is  addressed  to  Him  than  to  the  spirit  in  which 
it  is  put  (comp.  ii.  19  ;  iii.  3 ;  vi.  26).  He  thus  lays  hold  of  the  person  of 
His  interlocutor  even  in  his  inmost  self.  Mary  desires  a  brilliant  miracle, 
as  a  public  sign  of  His  coming.  Jesus  penetrates  this  ambitious  thought 
and  traces  a  boundary  for  Mary's  desires  which  she  should  no  more 
attempt  to  cross.  But  this  does  not  prevent  His  understanding  that  along 
with  this,  there  is  something  to  be  done  in  view  of  the  present  difficulty. 

Ver.  5.  "His  mother  says  to  the  servants,  Whatsoever  he  says  to  you,1  do  it." 
Something  in  the  tone  and  expression  of  Jesus  gives  Mary  to  understand 
that  this  refusal  leaves  a  place  for  a  more  moderate  granting  of  the  desire. 
Perhaps  in  this  narrative,  which  is  so  summary,  there  is  here  the  omission 
of  a  circumstance  which  the  reader  may  supply  for  himself  from  what 
follows  (precisely  like  that  which  occurs  in  xi.  28),  a  circumstance  which 
gives  occasion  to  the  charge  of  Mary  to  the  servants :  "  Do  whatsoever  lie 
shall  tell  you."  How,  at  this  moment  of  heavenly  joy,  when  Jesus  was 
receiving  His  Spouse  from  the  hands  of  His  Father,  could  He  have 

1  The  MSS.  are  divided  between  Aeyij  and  Atyei. 


chap.  ii.  5,  6.  349 

altogether  refused  the  prayer  of  her  who,  during  thirty  years,  had  been 
taking  the  most  tender  care  of  Him,  and  from  whom  He  was  about  to 
separate  Himself  forever?  Jesus,  without  having  need  of  any  other  sign 
of  His  Father's  will,  grants  to  the  faith  of  His  mother  a  hearing  analogous 
to  that  which,  at  a  later  time,  He  did  not  refuse  to  a  stranger,  a  Gentile 
(Matt.  xv.  25).  If  criticism  has  found  in  the  obscurities  of  this  dialogue 
an  evidence  against  the  truth  of  the  account,  it  is  an  ill-drawn  conclusion. 
This  unique  conciseness  is,  on  the  contrary,  the  seal  of  its  authenticity. — 
By  the  expression  :  Whatsoever  He  says  to  you,  Mary  reserves  full  liberty 
of  action  to  her  Son,  and  thus  enters  again  within  her  own  bounds,  which 
she  had  tried  to  overstep. 

Ver.  6.  "  Now  there  were  there 1  six  water-pots  of  stone,  according  to  the  usual 
manner  of  purifying  among  the  Jews,  containing  two  or  three  measures  apiece." 
'Ekei,  there,  denotes,  according  to  Meyer,  the  banqueting  room  itself.  Is  it 
not  more  natural  to  imagine  these  urns  placed  in  the  court  or  in  the  vestibule 
at  the  entrance  of  the  hall?  The  ninth  verse  proves  that  all  this  occurred 
out  of  the  bridegroom's  sight,  who  was  himself  in  the  room.  These  vases 
were  designed  for  the  purification  either  of  persons  or  utensils,  such  as 
was  usual  among  pious  Jews,  especially  before  or  after  meals  (Matt.  xv.  2 ; 
Luke  xi.  38 ;  particularly,  Mk.  vii.  1-4.) — Kara,  not  with  a  view  to,  but 
according  to  its  natural  sense,  in  conformity  with.  This  preposition  has 
reference  to  the  complement  ruv  'lovdaiuv :  conformably  to  the  mode  of 
purification  customary  among  the  Jews.  John  expresses  himself  thus 
because  he  is  writing  among  Gentiles  and  as  no  longer  belonging  to  the 
Jewish  community.  'Avd  has  evidently,  considering  the  very  precise 
number  six,  the  distributive  sense  (singulae),  not  the  approximative  mean- 
ing (a bout).  The  measure  which  is  spoken  of  was  of  considerable  size; 
its  capacity  was  27  litres  (Rilliet)  or  even  38  (Kelt)  or  39  (Arnaud).  The 
entire  contents  might,  therefore,  reach  even  to  about  500  litres.  [The, litre 
is  a  measure  nearly  corresponding  with  the  English  quart.]  This  quantity 
has  seemed  too  considerable,  it  has  even  scandalized  certain  critics  (Strauss, 
Schweizer),  who  have  found  here  an  indication  of  the  falsity  of  the  account. 
Liicke  replies  that  all  the  water  was  not  necessarily  changed  into  wine. 
This  supposition  is  contrary  to  the  natural  meaning  of  the  text ;  the  exact 
indication  of  the  capacity  of  the  vessels  certainly  implies  the  contrary. 
Let  us  rather  say  that  when  once  Jesus  yields  to  the  desire  of  His  mother, 
he  yields  with  all  His  heart,  as  a  son,  a  friend,  a  man,  with  an  inward  joy.  It 
is  His  first  miraculous  sign ;  it  must  give  high  testimony  of  His  wealth,  of 
His  munificence,  of  the  happiness  which  He  has  in  relieving,  even  in 
giving  gladness  ;  it  must  become  the  type  of  the  fullness  of  grace,  of  joy 
and  of  strength  which  the  only-begotten  Son  brings  to  the  earth.  There 
is,  moreover,  nothing  in  the  text  to  lead  us  to  suppose  that  all  the  wine 
must  have  been  consumed  at  this  feast.  It  was  the  rich  wedding  gift  by 
which  the  Lord  honored  this  house  where  He  with  his  attendants  had  just 

1  Keifieeai  placed  by  T.  R.  after  e£  accord-       put  after  Iovfieuwi'  in  B  C  L,  and  is  altogether 
ing  to  tho  majority  of  the  MSS.  and  Vss.,  is       wanting  in  N. 


300  FIRST  PART. 

been  hospitably  received.  Perhaps  the  number  six  was  expressly  called  to 
mind,  because  it  corresponded  precisely  with  the  number  of  persons  who 
accompanied  Jesus.  This  gift  was  thus,  as  it  were,  a  testimony  of  the 
gratitude  on  the  part  of  the  disciples  themselves  to  their  host;  it  was,  at 
all  events,  the  enduring  monument  of  the  Master's  benediction  upon  the 
youthful  household  formed  under  His  auspices.  How  can  criticism  put 
itself  in  collision  with  everything  that  is  most  truly  human  in  the  Gospel? 
Moreover,  what  a  feeling  of  lively  pleasure  is  expressed  in  the  following 
words !     Jesus  foresees  the  joyous  surprise  of  His  host : 

Vv.  7,  8.  "  Jesus  says  to  tliem,  Fill  the  water-pots  with  water.  And  they  filled 
them  up  to  the  brim.  8.  And  he  says  to  them,  Draw  out  now  and  bear  unto  the 
ruler  of  the/east.  And  they  bore  it." l  We  should  not  understand  ye^iaare, 
Jill,  in  the  sense  of  filling  up,  nor  allege  in  support  of  this  meaning  the 
words  tug  avu,  up  to  the  brim  ;  the  matter  thus  understood  has  something 
repugnant  in  it.  Either  the  urns  were  empty  in  consequence  of  the  ablutions 
which  had  taken  place  before  the  repast,  or  they  were  beginning  by 
emptying  them,  in  order  to  fill  them  afterwards  anew.  The:  up  to  the  brim 
serves  to  make  the  ardor  with  which  the  work  was  done  apparent.  The 
moment  of  the  miracle  must  be  placed  between  vv.  7  and  8 ;  since  the 
transformation  is  presupposed  as  accomplished  by  the  word  now  of  ver.  8. 
This  now,  as  well  as  the  words :  bear  it,  breathes  a  spirit  of  overflowing 
joy  and  even  gaiety.  The  person  here  called  ruler  of  the  fast  was  not  one 
of  the  guests ;  he  was  the  chief  of  the  servants :  it  belonged  to  his  office  to 
taste  the  meats  and  drinks  before  they  were  placed  upon  the  table.  He 
ordinarily  bears  in  Greek  the  name  rpane^oTroidg. 

Vv.  9,  10.  "  When  the  ruler  of  the  feast  had  tasted  the  water  which  was  made 
wine — and  he  knew  not  whence  it  came,  bid  the  servants  who  had  drawn 
the  water  knew — the' ruler  of  the  feast  calls  the  bridegroom,  10,  and  says  to  him, 
Every  one  serves  first  the  good  wine,  and  when  men  have  become  drunken,  then2 
that  which  is  worse ;  thou3  hast  kept  the  good  wine  until  now."  The  words 
vSup  olvov  yeyewTjjievov,  the  water  become  wine,  admit  of  no  other  sense  than 
that  of  a  miraculous  transformation.  The  natural  process  by  which  the 
watery  sap  is  transformed  every  year  in  the  vine-stock  {Augustine),  or  that 
by  which  mineral  waters  are  formed  (Neander),  offers,  indeed,  a  remote 
analogy,  but  not  at  all  a  means  of  explanation.  The  parenthesis  which 
includes  the  words  nal  ovk  .  .  .  v6wp  presents  a  construction  perfectly 
analogous  to  that  of  i.  10  and  vi.  21-23.  Tbis  parenthesis  is  designed  to 
make  the  reality  of  the  miracle  apparent,  by  reminding  the  reader,  on  the 
one  hand,  that  the  servants  did  not  know  that  it  was  wine  which  they 
were  bearing,  and  on  the  other,  that  the  ruler  of  the  feast  had  not  been 
present  when  the  event  occurred.  Weiss  makes  the  clause  nal  ovk  i/6u 
tvoOev  egtLv  also  depend  on  d>c,  and  commences  the  parenthesis  only  with 
ol  6e  .  .  .  This  is  undoubtedly  possible,  but  less  natural  as  it  seems  to 
me.     He  calls  the  bridegroom ;  the  latter  was  in  the  banqueting  hall. 

1  Instead  of  k<ji  riviyictv,  (t  B  K  L  some  3K  O  A  some  Mnu.  and  Vss.  read  cv  St 

Mnn.  Cop.  read  oi  Se  riveynav.  instead  of  <rv. 

'ttBL  some  Mnn.  omit  tot*  (then). 


chap.  ii.  7-11.  351 

Some  have  desired  by  all  means  to  give  a  religious  import  to  the 
pleasantry  of  the  ruler  of  the  feast,  by  attributing  to  it  a  symbolic  mean- 
ing ;  on  one  side,  the  world,  which  begins  by  offering  to  man  the  best 
which  it  has,  to  abandon  him  afterwards  to  despair ;  on  the  other,  God, 
always  surpassing  Himself  in  His  gifts,  and,  after  the  austere  law,  offering 
the  delicious  wine  of  the  Gospel.  There  was  by  no  means  anything  of  this 
sort  in  the  consciousness  of  the  speaker,  and  no  indication  appears  that 
the  evangelist  attached  such  a  sense  to  the  words.  This  saying  is  simply 
related  in  order  to  show  with  what  entire  unreservedness  Jesus  gave 
Himself  up  to  the  common  joy,  by  giving  not  only  abundantly  but  excel- 
lently. There  is  here,  also,  one  of  the  rays  of  His  66$a  {glory).  For  the 
rest,  it  is  not  at  all  necessary  to  weaken  the  sense  of  /xedvaOiJai,  to  be  drunken, 
in  order  to  remove  from  the  guests  at  the  wedding  all  suspicion  of  intem- 
perance. This  saying  has  a  proverbial  sense,  and  does  not  refer  to  the 
company  at  Cana. 

Ver.  11.  "  Tim  first1  of  his  miracles  Jesus  did  in  Cana  of  Galilee'',  and  he 
manifested  his  glory,  and  his  disciples  believed  on  him."  John  characterizes 
under  four  important  relations  the  miracle  which  he  has  just  related. 
1.  This  was  the  first,  not  only  of  the  miracles  performed  at  Cana,  but  of  all 
the  miracles  of  Jesus.  As  here  was  a  decisive  moment  in  the  revelation 
of  the  Lord  and  in  the  faith  of  the  disciples,  John  brings  out  this  fact  with 
emphasis.  The  Alexandrian  authorities  have  rejected  the  article  ttjv 
before  apxvv,  without  doubt  as  being  superfluous  on  account  of  tcivtt/v.  But, 
as  is  frequently  the  case  with  them,  when  desiring  to  correct,  they  spoil. 
Without  the  article,  the  attention  is  rather  drawn  to  the  nature  of  the 
miracle :  "  It  was  by  this  prodigy  that  Jesus  began  to  work  miracles." 
By  the  article  the  notion  itself  of  a  beginning  is  more  strongly  empha- 
sized :  "  That  fact  .  .  .  was  the  true  beginning  ..."  The  second  of 
these  ideas  is  as  thoroughly  an  essential  element  in  the  context,  as  we  shall 
see,  as  the  first  is  foreign  to  it.  2.  John  recalls  a  second  time,  in  closing, 
the  place  where  the  event  occurred.  The  design  of  this  repetition  cannot 
be  purely  geographical.  We  shall  see,  in  iii.  24  and  iv.  54,  how  anxious 
John  was  to  distinguish  between  the  two  returns  of  Jesus  to  Galilee  (i.  44 
and  iv.  1-3),  which  had  been  united  in  one  by  tradition,  and  this  is  the 
reason  why  he  expressly  points  out  how  the  one  and  the  other  of  these 
two  returns  was  signalized  by  a  miracle  accomplished  at  Cana.  Accord- 
ing to  Hengstenberg,  the  defining  words  of  Galilee  recall  the  prophecy  of 
Is.  viii.  23-ix.  1,  according  to  which  the  glory  of  the  Messiah  was  to  be 
manifested  in  Galilee.  This  aim  would  be  admissible  in  Matthew ;  it 
seems  foreign  to  the  narrative  of  John.  3.  John  indicates  the  purpose  of 
the  miracle.  He  uses  here,  for  the  first  time,  the  term  sign  (cr/fielm*)  which 
is  in  harmony  with  the  following  expression  :  "  He  manifested  His  glory." 
The  miracles  of  Jesus  are  not  mere  wonders  (re/mra),  designed  to  strike 
the  imagination.    A  close  relation  exists  between  these  marvelous  acts  and 

1  The  T.  R.  reads  with  the  majority  of  the  apxvv.  A  B  L  Tb  A  and  Oris,  reject  this  article. 
Mjj.  among  them  X,  and.tlio  Mnn.,  tijf  before  s  K  adds  npuTrjv  after  TaAiAaias. 


352  FIRST   PART. 

the  person  of  Him  who  performs  them.  They  are  visible  emblems  of 
what  He  is  and  of  what  He  comes  to  do,  and,  as  Reuss  says,  "  radiant 
images  of  the  permanent  miracle  of  the  manifestation  of  Christ."  The 
glory  of  Christ  is,  above  all,  His  dignity  as  Son  and  the  eternal  love  which 
His  Father  has  for  Him.  Now  this  glory  is,  in  its  very  nature,  concealed 
from  the  eyes  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth ;  but  the  miracles  are  the 
brilliant  signs  of  it.  They  manifest  the  unlimited  freedom  with  which  the 
Son  disposes  of  all  things,  and  thus  demonstrate  the  perfect  love  of  the 
Father  towards  Him  :  "  The  Father  loveth  the  Son  and  hath  given  all  things 
into  His  hands"  (iii.  35).  The  expression  "His  glory  "  makes  a  profound 
distinction  between  Jesus  and  all  the  divine  messengers  who  had  accom- 
plished like  wonders  before  Him.  In  the  miracles'  of  the  other  divine 
messengers  the  glory  of  Jehovah  is  seen  (Exod.  xvi.  7) ;  those  of  Jesus 
reveal  His  own,  by  bearing  witness  in  concert  with  His  words,  to  His  filial 
position.  The  expression  His  glory  contains,  moreover,  all  of  His  own 
that  Jesus  puts  into  the  act  which  He  has  just  performed,  the  love  full  of 
tenderness  with  which  He  makes  use  of  divine  omnipotence  in  the  service 
of  His  own.  4.  John,  finally,  sets  forth  the  result  of  this  miracle.  Evoked 
at  first  by  testimony,  faith  was  strengthened  by  personal  contact  with 
Jesus,  its  object.  Now  in  the  course  of  this  personal  relation,  it  makes 
such  experience  of  the  power  and  goodness  of  Him  to  whom  it  is 
attached,  that  it  finds  itself  thereby  immovably  confirmed.  Doubtless  it 
will  grow  every  day  in  proportion  as  such  experiences  shall  multiply  ;  but 
from  this  moment  it  has  passed  through  the  three  essential  phases  of  its 
formation :  testimony,  personal  contact  and  experience.  This  is  what 
John  expresses  by  the  words  :  "And  his  disciples  believed  on  him."  These 
glorious  irradiations  from  the  person  of  Jesus,  which  are  called  miracles, 
are,  therefore,  designed  not  only,  as  apologetics  often  assume,  to  strike 
the  eyes  of  the  still  unbelieving  multitude  and  to  stimulate  the  delaying, 
but,  especially,  to  illuminate  the  hearts  of  believers,  by  revealing  to  them, 
in  this  world  of  suffering,  all  the  riches  of  the  living  object  of  their  faith. 

What  took  place  in  the  minds  of  the  other  witnesses  of  this  scene? 
John's  silence  leads  us  to  suppose  that  the  impression  produced  was 
neither  profound  nor  enduring.  This  is  because  the  miracle,  in  order  to 
act  efficaciously,  must  be  understood  as  a  sign  (vi.  26),  and  because  to  this 
end  certain  moral  predispositions  are  necessary.  The  impression  of  as- 
tonishment which  the  guests  experienced,  not  connecting  itself  with  any 
spiritual  need,  with  any  struggle  of  conscience,  was .  soon  effaced  by  the 
distractions  of  life. 

On  the  Miracle  of  Cana. 

Objections  of  two  sorts  are  raised  against  the  reality  of  this  event:  the  one 
class  bear  on  miracles  in  general;  the  other,  on  this  one  in  particular.  We  do 
not  concern  ourselves  with  the  first.  We  think  there  is  nothing  more  opposed  to  the 
sound  method — the  method  called  experimental — than  to  begin  by  declaring,  as  a 
principle,  the  impossibility  of  a  miracle.  To  say  that  there  has  never  been  a  mira- 
cle until  now, — be  it  so.     This  is  a  point  for  examination.     But  to  say  that  there 


chap.  ii.  11.  353 

cannot  be  one,  is  to  make  metaphysics,  not  history ;   it  is  to  throw  oneself  into  the 
d  priori,  which  is  repudiated.1 

The  objections  which  relate  especially  to  the  miracle  of  Cana  are: 

1.  Its  magical  character  (Schweizer).  The  difference  between  the  magical  and 
the  miraculous  is,  that,  in  the  former,  the  supernatural  power  works  -in  vacuo,  dis- 
pensing with  already  existing  nature,  while  in  the  second,  the  divine  force  re- 
spects the  first  creation  and  always  connects  its  working  with  material  furnished 
by  it.  Now,  in  this  case,  Jesus  does  not  use  His  power  to  create,  as  Mary  undoubt- 
edly was  expecting  ;  He  contents  Himself  with  transforming  that  which  is.  He 
remains,  thus,  within  the  limits  of  the  Biblical  supernatural. 

2.  The  uselessness  of  the  miracle  is  made  an  objection.  It  is  "a  miracle  of 
luxury,"  according  to  Strauss.  Let  us  rather  say  with  Tholuck;"a  miracle  of 
love."  We  think  we  have  shown  this.  It  might  even  be  regarded  as  the  pay- 
ment of  a  double  debt:  to  the  bridegroom,  for  whom  the  Lord's  arrival  had 
caused  this  embarrassment,  and  to  Mary,  to  whom  Jesus,  before  leaving  her,  was 
paying  His  debt  of  gratitude.  The  miracle  of  Cana  is  the  miracle  of  filial  piety, 
as  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus  is  that  of  fraternal  affection.  The  symbolic  inter- 
pretations, by  means  of  which  it  has  been  desired  to  explain  the  purpose  of  this 
miracle,  seem  to  us  artificial :  to  set  the  Gospel  joy  in  opposition  to  the  ascetic 
rigor  of  John  the  Baptist  ( Ohhausen) ;  to  represent  the  miraculous  transforma- 
tion of  the  legal  into  spiritual  life  (Luthardt).  Would  not  such  intentions  betray 
themselves  in  some  word  of  the  text  ? 

3.  This  miracle  is  even  charged  with  immorality.  Jesus,  it  is  said,  countenanced 
the  intemperance  of  the  guests.  "  With  the  same  right  one  might  demand,"  an- 
swers Hengstenberg,  "  that  God  should  not  grant  good  vintages  because  of  drunk- 
ards." The  presence  of  Jesus  and,  afterwards,  the  thankful  remembrance  of  his 
hosts  would  guarantee  the  holy  use  of  this  gift. 

4.  The  omission  of  this  story  in  the  Synoptics  seems  to  the  adversaries  the 
strongest  argument  against  the  reality  of  the  event.  But  this  miracle  belongs 
still  to  the  family  life  of  Jesus  ;  it  does  not  form  a  part  of  the  acts  of  His  public 
ministry.  Moreover,  as  we  have  seen,  it  has  its  place  in  an  epoch  of  the  minis- 
try of  Jesus,  which,  by  reason  of  the  confusion  of  the  first  two  returns  to  Gali- 
lee, had  disappeared  from  the  tradition.  The  aim  of  John  in  restoring  this  event 
to  light  was  precisely  to  re-establish  the  distinction  between  these  two  returns  and, 
at  the  same  time,  to  recall  one  of  the  first  and  principal  landmaks  of  the  develop- 
ment of  the  apostolic  faith  (comp.  ver.  11). 

Do  not  a  multitude  of  proofs  demonstrate  the  fragmentary  character  of  the  oral 
tradition  which  is  recorded  in  the  Synoptics?  How  can  we  explain  the  omission 
in  our  four  Gospels  of  the  appearance  of  the  risen  Jesus  to  the  five  hundred? 
And  yet  this  fact  is  one  of  the  most  solidly  attested  (1  Cor.  xv.  6). 

If  we  reject  the  reality  of  the  miracle  as  it  is  so  simply  related  by  the  evan- 
gelist, what  remains  for  us?     Three  suppositions  : 

1.  The  natural  explanation  of  Paulus  or  of  Gfrorer:  Jesus  had  agreed  with  a 
tradesman  to  have  wine  brought  secretly,  during  the  feast,  which  He  caused  to  be 
served  to  the  guests  mixed  with  water.  By  His  reply  to  Mary,  ver.  4,  He  wishes  to 
induce  her  simply  not  to  injure  the  success  of  the  entertainment  which  He  has 

'On  miracles  in  general,  comp.  Introd.,  p.       Miracles  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  on  the  Super* 
8T   and    the   author' s   Conferences   on    the       natural. 
23 


354  FIRST   PART. 

prepared,  and  the  hour  for  which  has  not  yet  come,  through  an  indiscretion.  "  The 
glory  of  Jesus  (ver.  11),  is  the  exquisite  humanity  which  characterizes  His 
amiable  proceeding  (Paulas).  Or  it  is  to  Mary  herself  that  the  honor  of  this  at- 
tention is  ascribed.  She  has  had  the  wine  prepared,  in  order  to  offer  it  as  a  wed- 
ding present;  and  at  the  propitious  moment  she  makes  a  sign  to  Jesus  to  cause  it 
to  be  served  (Gjrorer).  Renan  seems  not  far  from  adopting  the  one  or  the  other  of 
these  explanations.  He  says  in  vague  terms :  "Jesus  went  willingly  to  marriage 
entertainments.  One  of  His  miracles  was  performed,  it  is  said,  to  enliven  a  vil- 
lage wedding  "  (p.  195).  Weiss  adopts  a  form  of  the  natural  explanation  which 
is  less  incompatible  with  the  seriousness  of  Jesus'  character  (see  above  on  ver  3)  : 
nevertheless,  he  acknowledges  that  John  believed  that  he  was  relating  a  miracle 
and  meant  to  do  so.  But  could  this  apostle,  then,  be  so  completely  deceived  re- 
specting the  nature  of  a  fact  which  he  himself  related  as  an  eye-witness  ?  Jesus 
must,  in  that  case,  have  intentionally  allowed  an  obscurity  to  hover  over  the 
event,  which  was  fitted  to  deceive  His  nearest  friends.  The  seriousness  of  the 
Gospel  history  protests  against  these  parodies  which  end  in  making  Jesus 
a  village  charlatan.  2.  The  mythical  explanation  of  Strauss:  Legend  invented 
this  miracle  after  the  analogy  of  certain  facts  related  in  the  Old  Testament, 
e.  g.  Exod.  xv.  23  ff.,  where  Moses  purifies  bitter  waters  by  means  of  a 
certain  sort  of  wood ;  2  Kings  ii.  19,  where  Elisha  does  something  similar.  But 
there  is  not  the  least  real  analogy  between  these  facts  and  those  before  us  here. 
Moreover,  the  perfect  simplicity  of  the  narrative,  and  even  its  obscurities,  are 
incompatible  with  such  an  origin.  "  The  whole  tenor  of  the  narrative,"  says 
Baur  himself  (recalling  the  judgment  of  de  Wette),  "  by  no  means  authorizes  us  to 
assume  the  mythical  character  of  the  account."  3.  The  ideal  explanation  of  Baur, 
Keim,  etc.  According  to  the  first,  the  pseudo-John  made  up  this  narrative  as  a  pure 
invention,  to  represent  the  relation  between  the  two  baptisms,  that  of  John  (the 
water)  and  that  of  Jesus  (the  wine).  According  to  the  second,  the  evangelist  in- 
vented this  miracle  on  the  basis  of  that  saying  of  Jesus :  "  Can  the  friends  of  the 
bridegroom  fast  while  the  bridegroom  is  with  them.  .  .  .  They  put  new  wine  into 
new  bottles  "  (Matt.  ix.  15,  17).  The  water  in  the  vessels  represents,  thus,  the  in- 
sufficient purifications  offered  by  Judaism  and  the  baptism  of  John.  The  worse 
wine,  with  which  ordinarily  the  beginning  is  made,  is  also  Judaism,  which  was 
destined  to  give  place  to  the  better  wine  of  the  Gospel.  The  delay  of  Jesus  rep- 
resents the  fact  that  His  coming  followed  that  of  John  the  Baptist.  His  hour  is 
that  of  His  death,  which  substitutes  for  the  previous  imperfect  purifications  the 
true  purification  through  the  blood  of  Christ,  in  consequence  of  which  is  given  the 
joyous  wine  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  etc.  ...  In  truth,  if  our  desire  were  to  demon- 
strate the"  reality  of  the  event  as  it  is  simply  related  by  John,  we  could  not  do  it 
in  a  more  convincing  way  than  by  explanations  like  these,  which  seem  to  be  the 
parody  of  criticism.  What!  shall  this  refined  idealism,  which  was  the  founda- 
tion and  source  even  of  the  narrative,  betray  itself  nowhere  in  the  smallest  word 
of  the  story  !  Shall  it  envelop  itself  in  the  most  simple,  prosaic,  sober  narrative 
.which  carries  conciseness  even  to  obscurity  !  To  our  view,  the  apostolic  narrative, 
by  its  character  of  simplicity  and  truth,  will  always  be  the  most  eloquent  de- 
fender of  the  reality  of  the  fact.1 

1  We  refrain  here  from  answering  Schweizer,       but  has  withdrawn    his   hypothesis.      (See 
who  attacked  the  authenticity  of  this  passage,       Introd.  p.  27). 


chap.  ii.  12.  355 

Before  leaving  this  first  cycle  of  narratives,  we  must  further  take  notice 
of  a  judgment  of  Renan  respecting  this  beginning  of  our  Gospel  (p.  109) : 
"  The  first  pages  of  the  fourth  Gospel  are  incongruous  notes  carelessly  put 
together.  The  strict  chronological  order  which  they  exhibit  arises  from 
the  author's  taste  for  apparent  •precision."  But  exegesis  has  shown,  on 
the  contrary,  that  if  there  is  a  passage  in  our  Gospels  where  all  things  are 
linked  together  and  are  strictly  consecutive,  not  only  as  to  time,  but  also 
as  to  substance  and  idea,  it  is  this  one.  The  days  are  enumerated,  the 
hours  even  mentioned:  it  is  the  description  of  a  continuous  week, 
answering  to  that  of  the  final  week.  More  than  this:  the  intrinsic  con- 
nection of  the  facts  is  so  close  that  Baur  could  persuade  himself  that  he 
had  to  deal  with  an  ideal  and  systematic  conception,  presented  under  an 
historic  form.  The  farther  the  Gospel  narrative  advances,  the  more  doesi 
Benan  himself  render  homage  to  its  chronological  exactness.  He  ends  by 
taking  it  almost  exclusively  as  a  guide  for  his  narration.  And  the  begin- 
ning of  such  a  story,  whose  homogeneity  is  evident,  is  nothing  but  an  ac- 
cidental collection  of  "  notes  carelessly  put  together !  "  This,  at  all  events, 
has  little  probability. 

SECOND   CYCLE. 

II.  12-IV.  54. 

This  second  cycle  is  naturally  divided  into  three  sections  :  1.  The  min- 
istry of  Jesus  in  Judea,  ii.  12-iii.  36;  2.  The  return  through  Samaria:  iv. 
1-42;  3.  The  settlingin  Galilee,  iv.  43-54.  We  shall  see  that  to  these  three 
geographical  domains  three  very  different  moral  situations  correspond. 
Hence  the  varied  manner  in  which  Jesus  reveals  Himself  and  the  differ- 
ent reception  which  he  meets. 

FIBST  SECTION. 

II.  12-111.  36. 

Jesus  in  Judea. 

Here  again,  as  in  the  preceding  story,  the  course  of  the  narrative  is 
steadily  continuous  and  its  historical  development  accurately  graduated. 
Jesus  first  appears  in  the  temple  (ii.  12-22) ;  later  He  teaches  in  the  capital 
(ii.  23-iii.  21),  finally,  He  exercises  His  ministry  in  the  country  of  Judea 
(hi.  22-36). 

I.  Jesus  in  the  Temple:  ii.  12-22. 

Ver.  12.  "After  this,  he  went  down  to  Capernaum,1  he  and  his  mother  and  his 
brethren 2  and  his  disciples,3  and  they  abode  there  not  many  days."  *  From 
Cana  Jesus  undoubtedly  returned  to  Nazareth.    For  it  was  the  latter  place 

iRBT'X  Itpi«.  :  Ka<t>apvaovii.,  instead  of  3  X  ItP>«'.  omit  koi   oi  (ioflijTai  avTov  (con- 

Kairepcaovfi  which  T.  R.  reads  with  the  19  fusion  of  the  two  avrov). 

other  Mjj.  4  Instead  of  enavav,  A  F  G  A  Cop.  read 

'BLTb  It»"«.  Orig.  omit  outov  after  aitX^oi.  cpcim  (he  abode). 


356  FIRST   PART. 

which  He  had  in  view  when  returning  from  Judea,  rather  than  Cana  to 
which  He  was  only  accidentally  called.  Weiss  finds  this  hypothesis  arbi- 
trary. He  prefers  to  hold  that  the  family  of  Mary  had  already  before  this 
left  Nazareth  to  settle  in  Cana.  It  seems  to  me  that  this  is  the  supposi- 
tion which  merits  precisely  the  name  of  an  arbitrary  one  (see  on  ver.  1). 
From  Nazareth  Jesus  and  His  family  removed  at  that  time  to  Capernaum, 
as  is  related  also  by  Matthew,  iv.  13  :  "  Having  left  Nazareth,  He  came  and 
dwelt  at  Capernaum."  It  is  only  necessary  to  recognize  the  fact  that  Mat- 
thew unites  in  one  the  first  two  returns  to  Galilee  (John  i.  44  and  iv.  1- 
3),  which  John  so  accurately  distinguishes.  From  his  point  of  view, 
Weiss  is  obliged  to  see  in  our  twelfth  verse  only  the  account  of  a  mere 
visit,  which  was  made  by  Jesus'  family  from  Cana  to  friends  at  Capernaum. 
But  what  purpose  does  it  serve  to  mention  a  detail  so  insignificant  and  one 
which  would  not  have  had  any  importance?  Jesus'  mother  and  brethren 
accompanied  Him.  No  doubt,  under  the  impression  produced  by  the 
miracle  of  Cana,  and  by  the  accounts  of  the  disciples,  His  family  were 
unwilling  to  abandon  Him  at  this  moment.  They  all  desired  to  see  how 
the  drama  which  had  just  opened  would  unfold.  This  detail  of  John's 
narrative  is  confirmed  by  Mark  vi.  3,  from  which  it  appears  that  the  sis- 
ters of  Jesus,  probably  already  married,  had  alone  remained  at  Nazareth, 
and  by  Mark  iii.  21-31,  which  is  most  naturally  explained  if  the  brothers 
of  Jesus  were  settled  with  Mary  at  Capernaum.  As  for  Jesus,  He  had  not, 
for  the  time,  the  intention  of  making  a  prolonged  stay  in  that  city.  It 
was  only  later,  when  He  was  obliged  to  abandon  Judea,  that  He  fixed 
His  ordinary  residence  at  Capernaum,  and  that  that  place  became  His 
own  city  (Matt.  ix.  1).  We  may  discover  in  the  words  of  Luke  iv.  23  an 
indication  of  this  brief  visit,  previous  to  His  settlement  in  that  city.  Thus 
a  considerable  difficulty  in  the  narrative  of  Luke  would  be  resolved  and 
the  accuracy  of  his  sources  would  be  verified  in  respect  to  one  of  the 
points  most  assailed  in  his  narrative.  Capernaum  was  a  city  of  consider- 
able commerce.  It  was  located  on  the  route  of  the  caravans  which 
passed  from  Damascus  and  from  the  interior  of  Asia  to  the  Mediterra- 
nean. There  was  a  custom-house  there  (Luke  v.  27  f.).  It  was,  in  some 
sort,  the  Jewish  capital  of  Galilee,  as  Tiberias  was  its  Gentile  or  Roman 
capital.  Jesus  would  have  less  narrow  prejudices  to  meet  there  than  at 
Nazareth,  and  many  more  opportunities  to  propagate  the  Gospel.  The 
word  Ka-kfir],  went  down,  is  due  to  the  fact  that  Cana  and  Nazareth  were 
situated  oh  the  plateau,  and  Capernaum  on  the  shore  of  the  lake.1    The 

i  Tt  does  not  seem  that  authorities  are  near  Khan-Minyeh,  about  a  league  south  west  of 

to  an  agreement  on  the  question  of  the  site  Tdl-Hum.     But   at  that  place  there    is   no 

of  Capernaum.    The  old  opinion  named  Tell  abundant  spring,  for  the  little  neighboring 

Hum  at  the  northern  extremity  of  the  lake.  fountain,  Ain-et-Tin,  which  issues  from  the 

There  are  ruins  there,  undoubtedly,  but  by  base  of  the  rock  a  few  paces  from  the  lake, 

»io  means  a  copious  spring  of  water  such  as  cannot  answer  to  the  description  of  Jose- 

that  which  Josephus  mentions  and  to  which  phus,  and  cannot  have  served  to  irrigate  the 

he  even  gives  the  name  Capernaum,  Ke<£ap-  country.      Caspari    and    Quandt  have    good 

ccofiTj   (Bell.  Jud.  iii.  10,  8).    Keim,  following  grounds,  therefore,  for  proposing  the  site  of 

Robinson,  pleads   energetically  in    favor   of  Ain-Mudawara,  a  magnificent  basin  of  water 


chap.  ii.  12.  357 

silence  preserved  respecting  Joseph  leads  to  the  supposition  that  he  had 
died  before  this  period.  Before  calling  His  disciples  to  follow  Him  defi- 
nitely, Jesus,  no  doubt,  granted  them  the  satisfaction  of  finding  them- 
selves once  more,  like  Himself,  in  the  family  circle.  It  was  from  that 
circle  that  he  called  them  again.     (See  p.  361.) 

What  is  the  true  meaning  of  the  expression  :  the  brethren  of  Jesus?  This 
question,  as  is  well  known,  is  one  of  the  most  complicated  ones  of  the  Gos- 
pel history.  Must  we  understand  by  it  brothers,  in  the  proper  sense  of 
the  word,  the  issue  of  Joseph  and  Mary  and  younger  than  Jesus?  Or 
sons  of  Joseph,  the  issue  of  a  marriage  previous  to  his  union  with  Mary? 
Or,  finally,  are  we  to  hold  that  they  are  not  sons  either  of  Joseph  or  of 
Mary,  and  that  the  word  brother  must  be  taken  in  the  broad  sense  of 
cousins?  From  the  exe'getical  point  of  view,  two  reasons  appear  to  us 
to  support  the  first  of  these  three  opinions :  1.  The  two  passages,  Matt.  i. 
25 :  "  He  knew  her  not  until  she  brought  forth  her  first-born  son  "  (or,  ac- 
cording to  the  Alexandrian  reading  "  her  son"),  and  Luke  ii.  7:  "she 
brought  forth  her  first-born  son."  2.  The  proper  sense  of  the  word  brothers 
is  the  only  natural  one  in  the  phrase :  his  mother  and  his  brethren.  The 
following  appendix  will  give  a  general  exposition  of  the  question. 

The  Brethren  of  Jesus. 

The  oldest  traditions,  if  we  mistake  not,  unanimously  assign  brothers  to  Jesus,  and 
not  merely  cousins.  They  differ  only  in  this  point,  that  these  brothers  are,  according 
to  some,  sons  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  younger  brothers  of  Jesus ;  according  to  others, 
children  of  Joseph,  the  issue  of  a  first  marriage.  The  idea  of  making  the  brothers  of 
Jesus  in  the  New  Testament  cousitis,  seems  to  go  no  further  back  than  Jerome 
and  Augustine,  although  Keim  (I.,  p.  423)  claims  to  find  it  already  in  Hegesippus 
and  Clement  of  Alexandria.  (Comp.  on  this  question,  the  excellent  dissertation 
of  Philip  Schaff:  Das  Verkaltniss  des  Jacobus,  Bruders  des  Herrn,  zu  Jacobus  Al- 
phaei,  1843.)  Let  us  begin  by  studying  the  principal  testimonies:  Hegesippus, 
whom  Eusebius  (ii.  23)  places  "in  the  first  rank  in  the  apostolical  succession," 
writes  about  160 :  "  James,  the  Lord's  brother,  called  the  Just  from  the  times  of 
Christ  even  to  our  days,  then  takes  in  hand  the  administration  of  the  Church  with 
the  apostles  (/ieto.  twv  dTroar.)."  It  clearly  follows  from  these  words:  with  the  apos- 
tles, that  Hegesippus  does  not  rank  James,  the  Lord's  brother,  among  the  apos- 

in  the  centre  of  the  plain  of  Gennesaret,  half  one  which  supplies,  at  the  present  time,  the 

a  league  west  of  Khan-Minyeh.    Renan  ob-  mill  which  is  placed  on  this  spot.    But  here 

jects  that  Capernaum  must  have  been  situ-  also  no  ruins  have  been  discovered  up  to  the 

ated  on  the  lake-shore  (irapa9a\a<ra-ia,  Matt.  present  hour.    As  for  Betksaida,  there  is  the 

iv.  13).    But  Ain-Mudawara  is  only  a  quarter  same  uncertainty.    Some  think  of  Ain-Tabi- 

of  a  league  distant  from  the  shore  of  the  lake  gah,  others  of  Et-Tin.    Quandt  even  expresses 

(comp.  Mark  v.  21,  Matt.  ix.  0).    Only  we  do  an  opinion  in  favor  of  El-MegdU  (The  Tower), 

not  find  ruins  in  this  district.    Are  we  then  which  is  ordinarily  regarded  as  the  Magdala 

to  think  of  Ain-Tabigah,  between  Tell-Hum  of  the  Gospel.    In  this  case,  we  must,  with 

and  Khan-Minyeh  ?    This  is  the  opinion  ex-  this  writer,  locate  Magdala,  together  with  the 

pressed    in    Heydenheim's     Viertcljahrschrift,  districtof  Dalmamitha,  southward  of  Tiberias. 

1871,  pp.  533-544.    A  powerful  spring  is  found  — Comp.  my  Comment  sitr  V  evang.  de  Luc,.\. 

there  which  may  have  served  the  purpose  of  p.  301  f. ;  Eng.  Trans.  I.,  p.  365. 
irrigating  the  country  by  aqueducts,  such  as 


358  FIRST   PART. 

ties,  and  consequently  distinguishes  him  from  the  two  apostles  of  this  name,  the 
son  of  Zebedee,  and  the  little  (less),  son  of  Alphaeus.  Now,  if  Alphaeus  is  the  Greek 
form  of  the  Aramaean  name  Clopas  ('S^n  =  Ktawdf),  a  name  which,  according  to 
Hegesippus,  was  that  of  the  brother  of  Joseph,  it  follows  from  this,  that,  this  last 
James  being  the  cousin  of  the  Lord,  the  tirst  could  be  only  His  brother,  in  the 
proper  sense. 

The  distinction  which  Hegesippus  established  between  the  three  Jameses  is  con- 
firmed by  an  expression  quoted  from  him  in  the  same  chapter  of  Eusebius:  "For 
there  were  several  persons  called  James  (tto/I/Uk  'ldnufioi)."  The  word  noXTiol  (sev- 
eral), implies  that  he  supposed  there  were  more  than  two  Jameses. 

Eusebius  relates  (iii.  11),  that  after  the  martyrdom  of  James  the  Just,  the  first 
bishop  of  Jerusalem,  "  Simeon,  the  son  of  Clopas,  who  was  the  Lord's  cousin  (aveiuoc), 
was  chosen  as  his  successor."  For,  Eusebius  adds :  '"  Hegesippus  relates  that  Clo- 
pas was  the  brother  of  Joseph."  By  this  expression:  the  son  of  Clopas,  Simeon's 
relationship  to  Jesus  is  evidently  distinguished  from  that  of  James;  otherwise, 
Eusebius  would  have  said  :  who  was  also  the  son  of  Clopas,  or  at  least :  who  was 
the  brother  of  James.  Hegesippus  did  not,  therefore,  consider  James  as  the  son 
of  Clopas,  nor,  consequently,  as  the  Lord's  cousin  ;  he  regarded  him,  therefore,  as 
His  brother  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word. 

Eusebius  (iii.  32),  quotes,  also,  the  following  words  of  Hegesippus:  "Some  of 
these  heretics  denounced  Simeon,  the  son  of  Clopas  ...  In  the  time  of  Trajan, 
the  latter,  son  of  the  Lord's  uncle  (6  e«  tov  Oeiov  tov  nvpiov  .  .  .  ),  was  condemned  to 
the  cross."  Why  designate  Simeon  by  the  expression :  son  of  the  Lord's  uncle, 
while  James  was  always  called,  simply,  the  Lord's  brother,  if  they  were  brothers, 
one  of  the  other,  and  related  to  the  Lord  in  the  same  degree  ?  The  principal  pas- 
sage of  Hegesippus  is  cited  by  Eusebius  (iv.  22) :  "  After  James  had  suffered  mar- 
tyrdom, like  the  Lord,  Simeon,  born  of  His  uncle  (Oeiov  avrov),  son  of  Clopas,  was 
appointed  bishop,  having  been  chosen  by  all  as  a  second  cousin  of  the  Lord  (bvra 
avefibv  tov  nvpiov  Sevrepov)."  If  we  refer  the  pronoun  avrov  (His  uncle),  to  James, 
the  question  is  settled  :  Simeon  was  the  son  of  James'  uncle,  consequently,  James' 
cousin,  and  not  his  brother ;  and  James  was,  therefore,  not  the  cousin,  but  the 
brother  of  Jesus.  If  we  refer  the  avrov  to  the  Lord  Himself,  it  follows,  as 
we  already  know,  that  Simeon  was  the  son  of  Jesus'  uncle,  that  is  to  say,  His 
cousin.  The  last  words  of  Hegesippus  carry  us  still  further.  Simeon  is  called  the 
second  cousin  of  Jesus ;  who  was  the  first  t  It  could  not  be  James  the  Just,  as  Keim 
thinks.  Everything  that  precedes  prevents  our  supposing  this.  As  constantly  as 
Simeon  is  called  cousin  of  Jesus,  so  constantly  is  James  the  Just  designated  as  His 
brother.  How  would  this  be  possible,  if  they  were  brothers  to  each  other  ?  It 
appears  to  me  that  the  first  cousin  of  Jesus  (the  eldest  son  of  Clopas),  could  have 
been  only  the  apostle  James  (the  little)  the  son  of  Alphaeus.  He,  as  an  apostle, 
could  not  be  head  of  a  particular  flock,  or  consequently,  bishop  of  Jerusalem. 
This  was,  then,  the  second  cousin  of  Jesus,  to  whom  they  turned  after  the  death 
of  James  the  Just.  Thus,  everything  is  harmonious  in  the  account  of  Hegesip- 
pus, and  the  identification  of  the  name  Alphaeus  and  Clopas,  which  is  at  the  pres- 
ent day  called  in  question,  is  confirmed  by  this  ancient  testimony.1     This  result  is 

1  The  identification  of  the  two  names  A!-  mann,  for  example,  prefers  to  derive  the  sec- 
phjeus  and  Clopas  is,  at  the  present  day,  called  ond  of  these  names  from  the  Aramaic,  word 
in  question  again  for  different  reasons.  Holtz-       eulba— hammer  (Jacob  der  Gerechte  und  semi 


chap.  ii.  12.  359 

also  confirmed  by  the  words  of  Hegesippus  respecting  Jude,  the  brother  of  James 
(Jude  ver.  i.):  "There  existed,  also,  at  that  time,  grandsons  of  Jude,  called  His 
brother  (brother  of  the  Lord)  according  to  the  flesh"  (Euseb.  iii.  20).  This  expres- 
sion: brother  of  the  Lord  according  to  the  flesh,  applied  to  Jude,  clearly  distinguishes 
his  position  from  that  of  Simeon.1 

The  opinion  of  Clement  of  Alexandria  may  appear  doubtful.  This  Father  seems 
(Euseb.  ii.  1)  to  know  only  two  Jameses:  1.  The  son  of  Zebedee,  the  brother  of 
the  Apostle  John ;  2.  The  Lord's  brother,  James  the  Just,  who  was  at  the  same 
time  the  son  of  Alphaeus,  and  tbe  cousin  of  Jesus.  "  For  there  were  two  Jameses," 
he  says,  "one,  the  Just,  who  was  thrown  from  the  pinnacle  of  the  temple  ....  the 
other,  who  was  beheaded  (Acts  xii.  2)."  Nevertheless,  Clement  may  very  well 
have  passed  in  silence  James,  the  son  of  Alphaeus,  of  whom  mention  is  only  once 
made  in  the  Acts,  and  who  played  no  part  in  the  history  of  the  Church  with 
which  this  Father  here  occupies  himself.  Clement,  moreover,  seems  to  derive  his 
information  respecting  James  from  Hegesippus  himself  (Schaff,  p.  69).  Now  we 
have  just  ascertained  the  opinion  of  the  latter.2  Tradition  recognizes,  therefore, 
the  existence  of  brothers  of  Jesus,  and  particularly  of  these  two:  James  and  Jude. 
But  are  they  children  of  Joseph,  the  issue  of  an  earlier  marriage,  or  sons  of  Jo- 
seph and  Mary  ? 

The  former  opinion  is  that  of  the  author  of  an  apocrypal  writing,  belonging  to 
the  first  part  of  the  second  century,  the  Protcvangelium  Jacobi.  In  chap.  ix. 
Joseph  says  to  the  priest  who  confides  Mary  to  him :  "  I  have  sons,  and  am  old." 
At  chap.  xvii. :  "I  have  come  to  Bethlehem  to  have  my  sons  registered,"  etc. 
Origen  accepted  this  view.  In  his  Homily  on  Luke  vii.,  translated  by  Jerome, 
he  says  :  "  For  these  sons,  called  sons  of  Joseph,  were  not  born  of  Mary."  (See 
the  other  passages  in  Schaff,  p.  81  f.)  It  follows,  however,  from  his  own  explana- 
tions that  this  opinion  rested,  not  on  an  historical  tradition,  but  on  a  double  dog- 
matic prejudice:  that  of  the  moral  superiority  of  celibacy  to  marriage,  and  that 
of  the  exceptional  holiness  of  the  mother  of  Jesus  (comp.  especially  the  passage 
ad  Matth.  xiii.  55).  Several  apocryphal  Gospels — those  of  Peter,  Thomas,  etc., 
as  well  as  several  Fathers,  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  Epiphanius,  etc.,  spread  abroad  this 
opinion.     But  Jerome  charges  it  with  being  deliramentum  apocryphorum. 

The  other  view  is  found  in  the  following  authorities :  Terlullian  evidently 
admits  brothers  of  Jesus  in  the  strict  and  complete  sense  of  the  word.  For  he 
says,  de  Monog.  c.  8:  "  The  virgin  was  not  married  until  after  having  given  birth 
to  the  Christ."  According  to  Jerome  (adv.  Heleid.),  some  very  ancient  writers 
spoke  of  sons  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  and  they  had  already  been  combated  by  Jus- 
tin ;  a  fact,  which  proves  to  what  a  high  antiquity  this  opinion  goes  back.3 

BriXder,  in  the  Zeitschr.  f.  wiss.  TheoL,  1880).  Is.  xvii.  5  (Montfaucons  Coll.  nova  pair.,  II., 
The  philological  scruples,  however,  which  p.  422),  he  reckons  fourteen  apostles  :  the  well- 
are  raised,  do  not  seem  to  me  sufficient  to  known  twelve  .  .  .  ,  then  Paul  .  .  .  ,  then 
overthrow  what  results  from  the  simple  and  James,  the  Lord's  brother,  first  bishop  of 
plain  tradition  of  Hegesippus.  Jerusalem.    But   respecting   the  manner  in 

1  Before  these  facts,  A'eim's  affirmation  (I.,  which  the  latter  was  related  to  the  Lord,  the 
p.  423)  falls  to  the  ground:  "Hegesippus  passage  ii.  1,  leaves  us  in  doubt  (see  the 
makes  James  and  Simeon  .  .  .  cousins  various  reading).  The  thought  of  Eusebius  on 
of  Jesus."  (Comp.  the  same  assertions  :  this  subject  does  not  seem  to  me  to  be  clear. 
Schenkel's  Bibellexic.,  I.,  p.  482.)  3  We  do  not  here  allege  testimonies  of  so 

2  Eusebius  himself  certainly  distinguished  late  a  time  as  that  of  the  letter  of  the  pseuao- 
James,  the  Lord's  brother,  from  James,  the  Ignatius  to  the  Apostle  John,  or  that  of  tho 
son  of  Alpheeus,  since  in  his  Commentary  on  Apostolical  Constitutions,  viii.  35  (see  Schaff). 


360  FIRST  PART. 

Whatever  preference  should  be  given  to  the  one  or  the  other  of  these  two 
relationships,  the  difference  between  the  brothers  and  cousins  of  Jesus  remains 
established  from  the  historical  point  of  view. 

This  now  is  the  difficulty  which  it  raises  :  The  names  of  J«sus'  brothers,  men- 
tioned in  Matt.  xiii.  55  ;  Mark  vi.  3,  are  James,  Joscs  (according  to  the  various 
readings,  Joseph  or  John),  Simon  and  Judas.  Now,  according  to  John  xix.  '25, 
comp.  with  Matt,  xxvii.  56  and  Mark  xv.  40,  Mary,  the  wife  of  Clopas,  aunt  of 
Jesus,  had  two  sons,  one  named  James  (in  Mark,  James  the  little),  the  other  Joses, 
who  were,  consequently,  two  cousins  of  Jesus.  Moreover,  Hegesippus  makes 
Simeon,  the  second  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  a  son  of  Clopas  ;  he  was,  therefore,  also  a 
cousin  of  Jesus.  Finally,  Luke  vi.  14-16  speaks  of  an  apostle  Jv-das  (son  or 
brother)  of  James  who  is  mentioned  as  son  of  Alpheeds  (or  Clopas).  He  would, 
thus,  be  a  fourth  cousin  of  Jesus,  and  the  two  lists  would  coincide  throughout ! 
Four  brothers  and  four  cousins  with  the  same  names !     Is  this  admissible?     But 

1.  As  to  the  Apostle  Judas,  the  natural  ellipsis  in  Luke's  passage  is  not  brother,  but 
son  of  James — consequently  of  some  James  unknown  to  us.  This  designation  is 
designed  merely  to  distinguish  this  apostle  from  the  other  Judas,  Iscariot,  whose 
name  follows.  Jesus  had  then,  indeed,  a  brother  named  Judas,  but  not  a  cousin 
of  this  name.  2.  The  statements  of  Hegesippus  certainly  force  us  to  admit  a 
cousin  of  Jesus  by  the  name  of  Simon.  3.  If,  for  the  second  brother  of  Jesus,  we 
adopt  the  reading  Joseph,  the  identity  of  name  with  that  of  the  third  cousin 
falls  to  the  ground  of  itself.  4.  As  to  the  name  James,  it  is  undoubtedly  found  in 
the  two  lists.  The  actual  result,  therefore,  is  this  :  In  these  two.  lists,  that  of  the 
brothers,  and  that  of  the  cousins  of  Jesus,  there  are  two  names  in  common  :  those 
of  James  and  Simon.  Is  this  sufficient  to  prove  the  identity  of  these  two  catego- 
ries of  persons  ?  Even  in  our  day,  does  it  not  happen,  especially  in  country 
places,  that  we  find  families  related  to  one  another,  in  which,  among  several 
children,  one  or  two  bear  certain  very  familiar  names  in  common  ? 

Notice,  on  the  other  hand,  two  positive  exegetical  reasons  in  favor  of  the  dis- 
tinction between  the  brothers  and  the  cousins  of  Jesus  :  1.  Without  doubt,  assum- 
ing the  premature  death  of  Clopas,  we  could  understand  how  his  widow  and  her 
sons  might  have  been  received  by  Joseph  and  Mary,  and  the  latter  brought  up 
with  Jesus,  and  in  this  way  their  designation  as  brothers  of  Jesus  could  be 
explained.  But  is  it  conceivable  that,  in  presence  of  the  fact  that  the  mother  of 
these  young  persons  was  still  living  (Matt,  xxvii.  56  and  parall.),  the  expression 
would  have  been  used  in  speaking  of  Mary  and  her  nephews,  "  His  mother  and  His 
brethren,"  as  it  is  used  in  our  Gospels  (Matt.  xii.  46  ;  Mark  iii.  31 ;  Luke  viii.  19)  ? 

2.  The  surname,  the  little,  given  to  James,  the  cousin  of  Jesus  (Mark  xv.  40), 
must  have  served  to  distinguish  him  from  some  other  member  of  his  family,  bear- 
ing the  same  name.  Is  it  not  probable  that  this  other  James  was  precisely 
James,  his  cousin,  the  brother  of  Jesus? 

We  conclude,  therefore,  that  Jesus  had  four  brothers  strictly  so  called:  James, 
surnamed  the  Just,  Joseph,  Simon  and  Judas, — and  three  cousins:  James,  the 
little,  Simon  and  Joses. 

No  one  of  His  brothers  was  an  apostle ;  a  fact  which  accords  with  vii.  5  :  "Not 
even  did  his  brethren  believe  on  him."  Being  converted  later,  after  His  resurrection 
(1  Cor.  xv.  5),  they  became,  one  of  them  (James),  the  first  bishop  of  Jerusalem 
(Gal.  i.  19  ;  ii.  9  ;  Acts  xv  ;  xxi.  18  fl.) ;  the  others,  zealous  missionaries  (1  Cor. 
ix.  5).     James   and   Judas  are   undoubtedly   the  authors  of  our  two  canonical 


CHAP.   IL    12.  361 

Epistles.  As  for  the  cousins  of  Jesus,  one  only  was  an  apostle,  James  (the  little) ; 
the  second, Simon,  was  the  second  bishop  of  Jerusalem.  Of  Joses,  the  third,  we 
know  nothing.1 

It  is  perhaps  not  impossible  to  place  in  this  first  visit  at  Capernaum 
some  of  the  facts  appertaining,  according  to  the  Synoptical  narratives,  to 
the  first  period  of  the  Galilean  ministry.  The  calling  of  the  disciples, 
following  upon  the  miraculous  draught  of  fishes,  takes  its  place  naturally 
here.  At  the  time  of  His  setting  out  for  Jerusalem,  Jesus  called  them  to 
follow  Him  for  ever.  He  was  going  to  inaugurate  His  work,  and  He  must 
have  desired  to  be  surrounded  from  that  time  by  those  whom  He  had  the 
design  of  associating  in  it.  This  twelfth  verse  is  not,  therefore,  the  close 
of  the  preceding  narrative,  as  Weiss  thinks.  It  is,  at  the  same  time,  the 
indication  of  the  moment  when  Jesus  passed  from  private  life  to  His 
public  ministry.  Like  His  disciples,  He  separates  Himself  from  His 
family  in  order  to  begin  the  Messianic  work.  Moreover,  this  narrative  is 
so  summary,  that  if  the  whole  of  Jesus'  life  were  not  presupposed  as 
known  to  the  readers,  it  would  resemble  an  enigma. 

We  have  to  consider  in  the  following  event :  1.  The  act  of  the  Lord:  w. 
13-16 ;  2.  The  effect  produced  :  vv.  17-22. 

Vv.  13-16. 

It  was  at  Jerusalem  and  in  the  temple,  that  the  Messiah's  ministry 
must  open.  "  The  Lord  whom  ye  seek,"  Malachi  had  said  (iii.  1-3), 
"  shall  enter  into  his  temple  ....  he  shall  purify  the  sons  of  Levi  ..." 
That  prophecy  said  to  Israel  that  her  King  would  announce  Himself,  not 
by  a  miracle  of  power,  but  by  an  act  of  holiness. 

The  moment  of  this  inauguration  was  naturally  indicated.  The  feast 
of  the  Passover,  more  than  any  other,  assembled  the  whole  people  in  the 
holy  city  and  in  the  courts  of  the  temple.  This  was  the  hour  of  Jesus 
(ver.  4).  If  the  people  had  entered  into  the  reformatory  movement  which 
He  sought,  at  that  time,  to  impress  upon  them,  this  entrance  of  Jesus 
into  His  temple  would  have  become  the  signal  of  His  Messianic  coming. 

The  temple  had  three  particularly  holy  courts:  that  of  the  priests,  which 
enclosed  the  edifice  of  the  temple  properly  so-called  (va6g) ;  more  to  the 
eastward,  that  of  the  men,  and  finally,  to  the  east  of  the  latter,  that  of  the 
women.  Around  these  courts  a  vast  open  space  had  been  arranged,  which 
was  enclosed  on  four  sides  by  colonnades,  and  which  was  called  the  court 
of  the  Gentiles,  because  it  was  the  only  part  of  the  sacred  place  (lepov)  into 
which  proselytes  were  permitted  to  enter.  In  this  outermost  court  there 
were  established,  with  the  tacit  consent  of  the  temple  authorities,  a 
market  and  an  exchange.  Here  were  sold  the  different  kinds  of  animals 
intended  for  the  sacrifices ;  here  Greek  or  Roman  money,  brought  from 

'Why  is  Mary,  the  wife  of  Clopas  (Mark  ami  not  of  Simon?  This  is  a  fact  not  easy  t» 
xv.  40),  called  the  mother  of  James  and  Joses,       explain. 


362  FIRST  PART. 

foreign  regions,  was  exchanged  for  the  sacred  money  with  which  the 
capitation-tax  determined  by  Exod.  xxx.  13  for  the  support  of  the  temple 
(the  half-shekel  or  double-drachma  =  about  31  cents)  was  paid. 

Until  this  day,  Jesus  had  not  risen  up  against  this  abuse.  Present  in 
the  temple  as  a  simple  Jew,  He  did  not  have  to  judge  the  conduct  of  the 
authorities,  still  less  to  put  himself  in  their  place.  Now,  it  is  as  the  Son 
of  Him  to  whom  this  house  is  consecrated,  that  He  enters  into  the 
sanctuary.  He  brings  to  it,  not  merely  new  rites,  but  new  duties.  To 
keep  silence  in  the  presence  of  the  profanation  of  which  religion  is  the 
pretext,  and  at  which  His  conscience  as  a  Jew  and  His  heart  as  the  Son 
revolt,  would  be  to  belie,  at  the  outset,  His  position  as  Messiah.  The  word 
of  Malachi,  which  we  have  just  quoted,  traces  His  course  for  Him.  It  is 
to  misconceive  gravely  the  meaning  of  the  act  which  is  about  to  be 
related,  to  see  in  it,  with  Weiss,  only  a  simple  attempt  at  reform,  such  as 
any  prophet  might  have  allowed  himself.  The  single  expression :  "  My 
Father's  house "  (ver.  16),  shows  that  Jesus  was  here  acting  in  the  full 
consciousness  of  His  Messianic  dignity;  comp.  also  ver.  19.  Vv.  19-21, 
make  us  appreciate  the  true  bearing  of  this  act;  it  is  an  appeal  to  the 
conscience  of  Israel,  a  demand  addressed  to  its  chiefs.  If  this  appeal  is 
heard,  this  act  of  purification  will  inaugurate  the  general  reform  of  the 
theocracy,  the  condition  of  the  Messianic  kingdom.  If  the  people 
remain  indifferent,  the  consequences  of  this  conduct  are  clear  to  the  view 
of  Jesus ;  all  is  over  with  the  theocracy.  The  rejection  of  the  Messiah, 
His  death  even ;  this  is  the  fatal  end  of  such  conduct.  Comp.  an  analo- 
gous ordeal  at  Nazareth,  Luke  iv.  23-27.  The  power  in  virtue  of  which 
'Jesus  acted,  was  by  no  means,  therefore,  the  alleged  right  of  the  zealots  of 
which  the  act  of  Ehineas  (Num.  xxv.;  Ps.  cvi.  30)  is  thought  to  have  been 
the  type,  but  which  never  really  existed  in  Israel. 

Ver.  13.  "  And l  the  Passover  of  the  Jews  was  near,  and  Jesus  went  up  to 
Jerusalem."  John  says  :  of  the  Jews,  with  reference  to  his  Gentile  readers, 
with  whom  he  identifies  himself  in  the  feeling  of  Christian  com- 
munion. 

Ver.  14.  "  And  he  found  in  the  temple  those  who  sold  oxen  and  sheep 2  and 
doves,  and  tfie  money-changers  sitting."  The  article  the  before  the  terms 
designating  the  sellers  and  money-changers,  which  Ostervald  omits  with 
other  translators,  sets  forth  this  office  as  a  known  one;  they  are  the 
habitual,  and  in  a  sense  licensed  sellers  and  money-changers.  The 
three  sorts  of  animals  mentioned  were  the  ones  most  habitually  used  for 
the  sacrifices. — Kepfiariar^g,  money-changer,  from  nepfia,  piece  of  money. 

Ver.  15.  "  And  having  made 3  a  small  scourge  of  cords,  he  drove  them  all 
out  of  the  temple,  both  the  sheep  and  the  oxen  ;  and  he  poured  out  the  changers' 
money*  and  overthrew'0  their  tables."  This  scourge  was  not  an  instrument, 
but  an  emblem.     It  was  the  sign  of  authority  and  of  judgment.     If  it 

1 K  alone  reads  8e  instead  of  Kai.  <BLT»  X  Orig.  read  ra  Kepjuara,  instead 

*  X  alone  reads  /cat  ra  irpo/3.  kcli  /3oas.  of  to  icepna. 

3K  alone  reads  t*oir)<rtv  .  .  .  «ai  (he  made  B  Instead   of  avearpetyev,  B   X:    aveTpeifitv : 

and  . . . )  X  '•  KOTto-Tpei^tK. 


chap.  ii.  13-16.  3G3 

had  been  a  matter  of  performing  a  physical  act,  the  means  would  have 
been  disproportionate  to  the  end,  and  the  effect  would  be  even  more  so 
to  the  cause.  The  material  use  of  the  scourge  had  no  place.  The  simple 
gesture  was  enough. — riavrac,  all,  includes,  according  to  many  (comp. 
Baumlein,  Weiss,  Keil),  only  the  two  following  objects  connected  by  re  Kai, 
"  all,  both  sheep  and  oxen."  But  it  is  more  natural  to  refer  ndvrag  to  tov; 
iruXovvTaq,  the  sellers,  which  precedes,  and  to  make  of  the  following  words 
a  simple  apposition  :  "  He  drove  them  all  out,  both  sheep  and  oxen."  The 
design  of  the  re  Kai,  as  well  as,  is  certainly  not  to  indicate  by  a  lifeless  dis- 
joining of  parts  the  contents  of  the  word  all,  but  to  express  the  sort  of 
bustle  with  which  men  and  animals  hastened  off  at  His  command  and  at 
the  gesture  which  accompanied  it.  He  overturned,  with  His  own  hand. — 
KoXXvfiicrTT^.  money-changer,  from  K67i?.v(3og,  nummus  minvius. — to  nip/ia, 
singular  taken  in  the  collective  sense. 

Ver.  16.  "  And  he  said  to  those  that  sold  the  doves :  take  tliese  things  hence  ; 
make  not  my  Father's  house  a  house  of  merchandise."  With  regard  to  the  sel- 
lers of  doves  Jesus  limits  Himself  to  speaking.  He  cannot  drive  out  the 
doves,  as  one  drives  oxen  or  sheep  ;  and  He  does  not  wish  to  overturn  the 
cages,  as  He  has  overturned  the  tables  of  the  money-changers.  He  is  per- 
fectly master  of  Himself.  If  He  had  really  struck  the  dealers  in  oxen  and 
sheep,  we  cannot  see  why  He  should  have  spared  the  sellers  of  pigeons. 
The  command  "  take  away  "  is  addressed  only  to  these  last ;  the  following 
words,  "  make  not,  .  .  ."  to  all  the  traffickers.  The  defining  phrase,  "  of 
my  Father,"  contains  the  explanation  of  Jesus'  act.  He  is  a  son  who 
avenges  the  honor  of  the  paternal  house.  When  He  was  in  the  temple 
at  the  age  of  twelve,  it  was  already  the  same  filial  feeling  which  animated 
Him ;  but  on  this  day  He  is  sustained  by  the  distinct  consciousness  of  His 
duty  as  Messiah,  involved  henceforth  for  Him  in  His  position  as  Son.  It 
is  very  remarkable  that  in  the  Synoptics  (the  scene  of  the  baptism),  -no 
less  than  in  John, the  feeling  of  His  filial  relation  to  God  takes  the  lead  in 
Jesus  of  that  of  His  office  as  Messiah.  He  does  not  feel  Himself  to  be 
Son  because  He  is  Christ ;  He  knows  Himself  to  be  Christ  because  He  is 
Son  (comp.  my  Comment,  on  Luke  I.,  p.  235).  Here  is  an  indication  which 
is  incompatible  with  the  opinion  of  Renan,  who  represents  Jesus  as  ex- 
alting Himself  by  degrees  and  raising  Himself  by  degrees  from  His  Mes- 
sianic consciousness  to  the  consciousness  of  His  divinity. 

The  outward  success  of  this  judicial  act  is  explained  by  the  majesty  of 
Jesus'  appearance,  by  the  irresistible  ascendency  which  was  given  to  Him 
by  the  consciousness  of  the  supernatural  force  which  He  could  exert  at 
need,  by  the  feeling  of  His  sovereignty  in  that  place,  as  it  betrays  itself  in 
the  expression  "  my  Father,"  and,  finally,  by  the  bad  conscience  of  those 
who  were  the  objects  of  such  a  judgment. 

Vv.  17-22. 

The  effect  is  described  in  vv.  17-22.  We  meet  here  a  fact,  which  will 
repeat  itself  at  every  manifestation  of  the  Lord's  glory ;  a  twofold  impres- 


304  FIRST   PART. 

sion  is  produced,  according  to  the  moral  predisposition  of  the  witnesses ; 
some  find  in  the  act  of  Jesus  nourishment  for  their  faith  ;  for  others  the 
same  act  becomes  a  subject  of  offense.  It  is  the  pre-existing  moral  sym- 
pathy or  antipathy  that  determines  the  impression. 

Ver.  17.  "  His  disciples  remembered  1  that  it  was  written :  TJie  zeal  of  thy 
house  shall  eat  me  up."  a  This  recollection  took  place  immediately ;  comp. 
ver.  22,  where  the  opposite  fact  is  expressly  pointed  out.  Ps.  lxix.,  the 
ninth  verse  of  which  presents  itself  at  this  moment  to  the  remembrance 
of  the  disciples,  is  only  indirectly  Messianic— that  is  to  say,  the  subject 
contemplated  by  the  Psalmist  is  not  the  person  of  the  Messiah  (comp.  ver. 
6  :  "  Thou  knowest  my  foolishness,  and  my  sins  are  not  hid  from  thee  "),  but  the 
theocratic  righteous  person,  suffering  for  the  cause  of  God.  The  highest 
realization  of  this  ideal  is  the  Messiah.  Weiss  claims  that  this  quotation 
finds  an  explanation  only  so  far  as  this  Psalm  was,  at  that  time,  exclu- 
sively, and  through  an  error,  referred  to  the  Messiah.  But  in  order  to 
this,  the  reading  of  ver.  6  must  have  been  forgotten.  The  unanimity  of 
the  Mjj.  decides  in  favor  of  the  reading  naTCKpayerai.  This  verb  is  a  future; 
the  evangelist  substitutes  it  for  the  past  Hattya-ye,  liath  eaten  up,  of  the 
LXX.  which  is  in  conformity  with  the  Hebrew  text.  The  disciples  are 
thinking,  not  of  Jesus'  last  sufferings,  which  were  at  that  time  beyond  the 
thoughts  which  occupied  their  minds,  but  on  the  consuming  force  of  His 
zeal,  on  that  living  holocaust,  the  first  act  of  which  they  beheld  at  this  mo- 
ment.   This  also  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  hath  eaten  up,  in  the  Psalm. 

While  the  disciples  compare  the  Scriptures,  and  this  remembrance 
strengthens  their  faith,  the  Jews  reason  and  object,  just  as  the  inhabitants 
of  Nazareth  do,  Luke  iv.  22.  Instead  of  letting  the  act  of  Jesus  speak,  as 
every  manifestation  of  holiness  should,  to  their  conscience,  they  demand 
the  external  sign  which  should  legitimate  this  act,  as  if  it  did  not  contain 
in  itself  its  own  legitimation ! 

Ver.  18.  "  The  Jews,  therefore,  ansivered  and  said  unto  him :  What  sign 
showest  thou  unto  us,  that  thou  doest  these  things  ?  "  The  particle,  therefore, 
connects  again  with  ver.  16,  after  the  interruption  in  ver.  17.  The  expres- 
sion "  the  Jews  "  designates  here  especially  the  authorities  charged  with 
the  care  of  the  temple,  with  the  shade  of  hostility  which  attaches  to  this 
term  in  our  Gospel  (see  i.  19).  Riggenbach  ("  Leben  des  Herrn  Jesu,"  p. 
382)  observes  that  "  it  is,  indeed,  the  method  of  Pharisaism  to  demand  a 
c7]fielov,  an  external  sign,  to  legitimate  an  act  which  commends  itself  to  the 
conscience  by  itself  alone,  because,  once  on  this  path,  one  can  cavil  about 
the  nature  and  value  of  the  sign,  can  move  on  indefinitely  from  demand 
to  demand,  and  can  ask  finally,  after  a  multiplication  of  loaves  :  What  sign 
doest  thou  then  f  ' AnonpiveaOai  does  not  signify  here,  any  more  than  else- 
where, to  take  up  the  discourse  (Ostervald,  Rilliet,  Arnaud).  This  word  al- 
ways contains  the  idea  of  reply  ;  only  the  reply  is  sometimes  addressed  to 
the  conduct  or  the  feeling  of  the  interlocutor.    Here  the  Jews'  question  is 

1 N  B  L  T*  X    Cop.  Orig.    omit  5e    after       with  several  Mnn.  It.,  instead  of  Kara^avf 
invt)<jdr)<Tav.  Tai  (shall  eat  up)  which  all  the  Mjj.  read 

•The  T.  R.  reads  xare^aye  (hath  eaten  up) 


ciiap.  ii.  17-19.  3G5 

an  answer  to  the  act  of  Jesus;  Jesus  had  just  addressed  an  appeal  to  the 
religious  sentiment  of  the  people.  The  attitude  of  the  people,  thus 
called  upon  to  declare  themselves,  in  some  sort  decided  fatally  their  future. 
The  reply  was  significant.  The  nineteenth  verse  will  show  us  that  Jesus 
immediately  penetrated  its  whole  meaning. — "On  :  "  What  sign  showest 
thou  (to  explain)  (licit  thou  art  doing  ..."  Meyer  :  clg  zkeivo  on. 

Ver.  19.  "  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  them  :  Destroy  this  temple,  and  in 
three  days  I  will  raise  it  up."  This  answer  of  Jesus  is  sudden,  like  a  flash  of 
lightning.  It  springs  from  an  immeasurable  depth ;  it  illuminates  regions 
then  completely  unexplored  by  any  other  consciousness  than  His  own. 
The  words  :  Destroy  this  temple,  characterize  the  present  and  future  conduct 
of  the  Jews  in  its  innermost  significance,  and  the  words:  In  three  days  I 
will  raise  it  up,  display  all  the  grandeur  of  the  person  and  of  the  future 
work  of  Jesus.  This  mysterious  saying  involves  the  following  difficulty : 
on  the  one  hand,  the  connection  with  what  precedes  prompts  us  to  refer 
the  words,  this  temple,  to  the  temple  properly  so  called,  which  Jesus  had 
just  purified  ;  on  the  other,  the  evangelist's  interpretation  (ver.  21)  obliges 
us  to  apply  them  to  the  body  of  Jesus.  Some,  as  Liicke  and  Reuss,  cut 
the  Gordian  knot  by  declaring  that  there  is  a  conflict  which  cannot  be  set- 
tled between  scientific  exegesis  and  the  apostle's  explanation,  and  by  de- 
termining that  there  is  an  advance  of  the  first  beyond  the  second.  Baur 
administers  a  severe  lecture  to  Liicke  for  irreverence  towards  the  apostolic 
exegesis,  of  which  this  view  gives  evidence.  In  fact,  according  to  Baur, 
this  saying  being  partly  the  creation  of  the  evangelist  himself,  he  must 
know  better  than  any  one,  better  than  Liicke,  what  is  its  true  meaning ! 

The  historical  truth  of  this  saying  of  Jesus  is  guaranteed :  1.  By  the 
declaration  of  the  false  witnesses  (Matt.  xxvi.  61 ;  Mark  xiv.  57,  58),  which 
proves  that,  although  the  recollection  of  the  circumstances  in  which  it 
was  pronounced  may  have  been  effaced,  the  expression  itself  had  re- 
mained deeply  engraved  on  the  memory,  not  only  of  the  disciples,  but  of 
the  Jews.  2.  By  Acts  vi.  14,  where  Stephen's  accusers  said :  "  We  have 
heard  him  say  that  this  Jesus  of  Nazareth  shall  destroy  this  place  and  shall 
change  the  customs  which  Moses  gave  to  us."  Stephen  could  not  have 
spoken  thus  except  on  the  foundation  of  a  positive  declaration  of  Jesus. 
3.  By  the  originality,  the  conciseness,  and  even  the  obscurity  of  the 
saying. 

The  first  clause  cannot  contain  an  invitation  to  the  Jews  directly  to 
destroy  the  temple,  not  even  in  the  hypothetical  sense  of  de  Wette :  "  If 
you  should  destroy."  This  supposition  would  be  absurd ;  no  Israelite 
would  have  thought  of  laying  his  hand  on  the  sacred  edifice.  The  word 
destroy  should,  therefore,  be  taken  in  the  indirect  sense :  to  bring  about, 
by  continuing  in  the  course  which  you  are  following,  the  destruction  of 
the  theocracy  and  that  of  the  temple.  But  what  is  the  offense  by  which 
Israel  can  provoke  this  final  chastisement?  Modern  interpretation, — 
"  scientific  exegesis,"  as  Liicke  says, — answers :  By  continually  increasing 
moral  profanations,  such  as  that  against  which  Jesus  had  just  protested. 
This  answer  is  insufficient.    Simple  sins  of  this  kind  could  prepare,  but 


366  FIRST   PART. 

not  decide,  this  catastrophe.  The  Old  Testament  assigns  a  more  positive 
cause  for  the  final  ruin  of  Israel;  it  is  the  rejection  and  murder  of  the 
Messiah.  Zechariah  announces  this  crime,  when  describing  (xii.  10)  the 
mourning  of  the  Israel  of  the  last  days,  lamenting  the  murderous  sin 
against  Jehovah  whom  they  have  pierced.  Daniel,  chap,  ix.,  says :  "  The 
Mesriah  shall  be  cut  off.  .  .  .  and  the  people  of  a  prince  who  shall  come 
shall  destroy  the  city  and  the  sanctuary  ;"  a  passage  which  Matthew  (xxiv. 
15, 16)  applies  to  the  circumstances  of  his  time.  The  means  for  Israel  of 
destroying  its  temple,  are,  to  the  view  of  Jesus,  to  put  the  Messiah  to 
death.  The  appearance  of  the  Messiah  is  the  purpose  of  the  theocratic 
institution.  The  Messiah  being  once  cut  off,  it  is  all  over  with  Israel  and 
consequently  with  the  temple.  The  people  and  the  priesthood  may 
indeed  still  exist  for  a  while  after  this ;  but  all  this  is  nothing  more  than 
the  carcase  over  which  the  eagles  of  the  divine  judgment  gather  themselves  (Matt. 
xxiv.  28).  Why,  at  the  moment  when  Jesus  expires,  is  the  veil  of  the 
temple  rent  ?  It  is  because,  in  reality,  there  is  no  longer  a  Most  Holy 
place,  no  longer  a  Holy  place,  no  longer  courts,  sacrifice,  priesthood ;  the 
temple,  as  Jehovah's  temple,  has  ceased  to  exist. 

When  He  says  "  Destroy  this  temple,"  therefore,  it  is,  indeed,  of  the  tem- 
ple properly  so  called,  that  Jesus  speaks ;  but  He  knows  that  it  will  be 
in  His  own  person,  that  this  destruction,  bo  far  as  it  depends  on  the  Jews, 
will  be  consummated.  It  is  on  His  body  that  they  will  cause  the  blow  to 
fall,  which  will  destroy  their  sanctuary.  The  imperative  Ivaare  is  not, 
then,  merely  concessive:  "  If  it  happens  that  you  destroy."  It  is  of  the 
same  kind  with  that  other  "imperative,  "  What  thou  hast  to  do,  do  quickly  " 
(xiii.  27).  When  the  fruit  of  perversity,  collective  or  individual,  is  ripe, 
it  must  fall.     Comp.  also  the  ntypuoare,  Matt,  xxiii.  32. 

The  meaning  of  the  second  clause  follows  from  that  of  the  first.  If 
the  death  of  Jesus  is  the  real  destruction  of  the  temple,  the  restoration 
of  the  latter  can  consist  only  in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Himself.  Jesus 
once  said  :  "  Here  is  more  than  the  temple  "  (Matt.  xii.  6).  His  body  was  the 
living  and  truly  holy  dwelling  of  Jehovah ;  the  visible  sanctuary  was  the 
anticipatory  emblem  of  this  real  temple.  It  is,  therefore,  really,  in  Him, 
in  His  body,  that  this  supreme  crisis  will  be  effected.  The  Messiah  per- 
ishes ;  the  temple  falls.  The  Messiah  lives  again ;  the  true  temple  rises 
again ;  in  a  new  form,  beyond  doubt.  For  in  the  Kingdom  of  God,  there 
is  never  a  simple  restoration  of  the  past.  He  who  speaks  of  rising  aneAV 
speaks  of  progress,  reappearance  in  a  higher  form.  The  word  eyeipsiv,  to 
waken  up,  to  raise  up,  is  perfectly  suitable  here.  For  it  may  be  applied  at 
once  to  a  resurrection  and  a  construction  (see  Meyer).  The  expression : 
in  three  days,  the  authenticity  of  which  is  guaranteed  in  a  very  special 
way  by  the  statement  of  the  false  witnesses  (Sta  rpi&v  ruiepdv,  Matt.  xxvi.  Gl ; 
Mark  xiv.  58),  receives  in  our  explanation  its  natural  meaning;  for,  in  an 
historical  situation  so  solemn  as  this,  it  is  impossible  to  see  only  a  poetic 
or  proverbial  form  for  saying :  "  in  a  very  short  time,"  as  Hos.  vi.  2,  or 
Luke  xiii.  31.  A  demonstrative  miracle  has  been  demanded  of  Jesus,  as 
a  sign  of  His  competency.    We  know  from  the  Synoptics  that  Jesus 


chap.  ii.  19.  367 

always  rejected  such  demands,  which  renewed  for  Him  the  third  tempta- 
tion in  the  wilderness. 

But  there  was  a  miracle,  one  only,  which  He  could  promise,  without 
condemning  Himself  to  the  role  of  a  wonder-worker,  because  this  mira- 
cle entered  as  a  necessary  element  into  the  very  work  of  salvation  :  it  was 
His  resurrection.  Thus  it  is  to  this  sign  that  He  in  like  manner  appeals, 
in  similar  cases,  in  the  Synoptics  (Matt.  xii.  38-40 ;  xvi.  4).  We  come 
also  here  upon  one  of  those  profound  analogies  which,  beneath  the  dif- 
ference of  the  forms,  blend  into  one  whole  the  representation  of  the  Syn- 
optics and  that  of  John.  It  is  by  the  reparative  power  which  He  will 
display,  when  the  Kingdom  of  God  shall  have  sunk  down,  in  a  sense, 
even  to  nothing,  that  Jesus  will  prove  the  competency  for  reformation 
which  He  has  just  arrogated  to  Himself  at  this  hour.  This  explanation 
answers  thus  to  the  natural  meaning  of  the  expressions  of  the  text,  to 
the  demands  of  the  context,  and  finally  to  the  evangelist's  interpretation. 

The  following  is  the  meaning  at  which  modern  exegesis  has  arrived,  by 
following,  as  Liicke  says,  "  the  laws  of  philological  art."  It  is  best  set 
forth,  as  it  seems  to  us,  by  Ewald  (Gesch.  Christi,  p.  230):  "All  your  re- 
ligion, resting  upon  this  temple,  is  corrupted  and  perverted ;  but  He  is 
already  present,  who,  when  it  shall  have  perished  as  it  deserves,  shall 
easily  restore  it  in  a  more  glorious  form,  and  shall  thus  work,  not  one  of 
those  common  miracles  which  you  ask  for,  but  the  grandest  of  miracles." 
In  this  explanation,  the  temple  destroyed  is  Judaism  ;  the  temple  raised 
up  is  Christianity  ;  the  act  of  raising  it  up  is  Pentecost,  not  the  resurrec- 
tion. We  shall  not  say  that  this  sense  is  absolutely  false ;  it  is  so  only  so 
far  as  it  is  given  as  the  exact  expression  of  the  thought  of  Jesus  at  this 
moment.  What  condemns  it  is  :  1.  That  the  transformation  of  the  econ- 
omy of  the  letter  into  that  of  the  Spirit  is  not  a  sign,  but  the  work  itself. 
It  is  necessary  that  the  event  indicated  by  Jesus  should  have  an  external 
character,  in  order  to  be  adapted  to  the  demand  which  was  addressed  to 
Him ;  2.  It  is  impossible,  from  this  point  of  view,  to  interpret  naturally 
the  words :  in  three  days.  The  passages  (Hos.  vi.  2  and  Luke  xiii.  31)  do 
not  sufficiently  justify  the  figurative  sense  which  must,  in  that  case,  be 
given  to  them  here ;  3.  The  temple  raised  up  would  be  entirely  different 
from  the  temple  destroyed ;  but  the  pronoun  ahr6v  (it),  demands  that  there 
/  should,  at  least,  be  a  relation  between  the  one  and  the  other  (the  body  of 
Jesus  destroyed  and  raised  again).  Objection  is  made  to  the  meaning 
which  we  have  proposed,  that  the  Jews  could  not  have  understood  so 
mysterious  a  reply.  Assuredly,  they  did  not  see  in  the  temple,  of  which 
Jesus  spoke,  anything  but  the  material  edifice,  and  they  represented  to 
themselves  the  sign  promised  by  Him  as  the  magical  appearance  of  a  new 
and  supernatural  temple  (Mark  xiv.  58).  But  we  shall  see  that,  in  dealing 
with  evil-disposed  persons,  the  method  of  Jesus  is  to  throw  out  enigmas 
and  to  reveal  the  truth  only  while  veiling  it ;  comp.  the  explanation  of 
Jesus  respecting  the  use  of  parables  (Matt.  xii.  11-16).  Here  is  a  secret 
of  the  profoundest  pedagogics. 

Objection  is  also  made,  that  Jesus  could  not,  so  long  beforehand,  know 


308  FIRST   PART. 

of  His  death  and  resurrection.  But  in  the  Synoptics,  also,  He  very  early 
announces  the  tragical  end  of  His  Messianic  ministry.  It  is  during  the 
first  days  of  His  activity  in  Galilee,  that  He  speaks  of  the  time  "  when  the 
bridegroom  will  be  taken  away,  and  when  the  disciples  will  fast"  (Mark  ii. 
Id,  20).  Had  Jesus,  then,  never  read  Is.  liii.,  Dan.  ix.,  Zech.  xiL,  etc.? 
Now,  if  He  foresaw  His  death,  He  must  have  been  assured  also  of  His 
resurrection.  He  could  not  suppose  that  the  bridegroom  would  be  taken 
away,  not  to  be  restored. 

Finally,  it  is  objected,  that,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  it  is  not  Jesus 
who  raised  Himself.  But  the  receptivity  of  Jesus,  in  the  act  of  His  res- 
urrection, was  not  that  of  passivity.  He  says  Himself  (x.  17,  18) :  "  I  give 
up  my  life,  that  I  may  take  it  again  .  .  .  I  have  the  power  to  give  it  up,  and  I 
have  the  power  to  take  it  again."  He  lays  hold,  as  in  all  His  miracles,  of  the 
divine  omnipotence,  and  this  becomes  thereby  active  in  Him. 

Rznan  has  seen  in  this  utterance,  so  original  and  so  profound,  only  a  whim: 
"  One  day,"  he  says,  "  His  ill-humor  against  the  temple  drew  from  Him  an  impru- 
dent word."  He  adds:  "We  do  not  know,  indeed,  what  sense  Jesus  attached  to 
this  word,  in  which  His  disciples  sought  forced  allegories"  (Viede  Jesus,  p.  367). 
Where  Renan  sees  a  proof  of  the  ill-humor  of  Jesus  against  the  temple,  the 
immediate  witnesses  found  one  of  the  zeal  for  the  house  of  God,  which  de- 
voured their  Master.  Which  has  better  understood  Jesus?  As  for  the  explana- 
tion given  by  John  (ver.  21),  we  shall  hope  that  every  serious  reader  will  find  in 
it  something  else  than  a  "forced  allegory." 

Weiss  does  not  think  it  is  possible  to  defend  the  complete  authenticity  of  the 
expression  of  Jesus,  as  it  has  been  preserved  for  us  by  John.  If  Jesus  expressed 
Himself  thus,  he  must,  at  the  same  time,  have  pointed  to  His  body  with  His  lin- 
ger, and  this  gesture' would  have  been  sufficient  to  render  the  misapprehension  of 
the  Jews  (ver.  20)  impossible.  Besides,  the  interpretation  which  Mark  gives  of 
the  saying  of  Jesus  (xiv.  58),  leads  one  to  suppose  that  its  real  meaning  was  a 
little  different  from  that  which  we  find  in  John.  To  the  demand  of  the  Jews 
relative  to  His  competency  to  purify  the  temple  (ver.  18),  Jesus  is  said  to  have  an- 
swered, that  for  the  outward  temple  He  would  substitute  the  habitation  of  God  in 
the  spirit.  It  was  John,  according  to  Weiss,  who  introduced  afterwards  into  the 
quite  simple  answer  of  Jesus,  the  two  ideas  of  His  death  and  His  resurrection. 
This  hypothesis  could  be  taken  into  consideration  only  if  the  difficulty  presented 
by  the  saying  of  Jesus,  as  we  have  it,  were  insurmountable.  But  we  believe  that 
we  have  shown  that  it  is  not  so.  At  the  foundation,  the  true  ground  of  this  sup- 
position is,  that  according  to  this  author,  Jesus  must  not  have  predicted  before- 
hand His  death  and  resurrection. 

How  did  Jesus  discover  in  this  question,  apparently  so  innocent:  "Wfuit  sign 
showest  thou?"  the  prelude  of  the  catastrophe  which  was  to  put  an  end  to  His  own 
life,  and,  by  that  means,  to  the  theocracy  itself?  We  know  from  ii.  3,  4,  with  what 
penetration  Jesus  seized  upon  the  moral  bearing  of  the  words  which  were  addressed 
to  Him.  We  have  also  cited  Luke  iv.  22,  where  it  was  enough  for  Jesus  to 
hear  the  critical  reflection  on  the  part  of  the  inhabitants  of  Nazareth :  "  Is  not 
this  the  son  of  Joseph?"  in  order  to  His  announcing  to  them  His  near  rejection, 
not  only  on  their  part  (ver.  23),  but  on  the  part  of  the  whole  people  (vv.  24-27). 


chap.  ii.  20-22.  3G9 

In  the  most  fugitive  impression  of  His  interlocutors,  the  perspicacious  eye  of 
Jesus  discerned  the  principle  of  the  great  final  decision.  By  this  characteristic 
feature,  also,  we  verify  in  the  Jesus  of  the  [Synoptics  and  of  John,  one  and  the 
same  Jesus. 

Vcr.  20.  "  The  Jews  said,  therefore :  Forty-six  years  tvas  this  temple  in 
building,  and  wilt  thou  raise  ii  up  in  three  days  f  "  The  restoration  of  the 
temple  by  Herod  had  begun  in  the  eighteenth  year  of  his  reign,  accord- 
ing to  Josephus  (Antiqq.  xv.  11,  1).  In  the  Jewish  War,  the  same  historian. 
by  an  error,  mentions  the  fifteenth.  The  first  year  of  the  reign  of  this 
prince  was  that  from  the  first  of  Nisan  717  U.  C.  to  the  first  of  Nisan  718; 
the  eighteenth  would  consequently  be  the  year  included  between  the  first 
of  Nisan  784  and  the  first  of  Nisan  735:  it  was  about  the  autumn  of 
that  year  that  the  work  began  (Jos.  Ant.  xv.  11,  1).  The  time  indicated, 
forty-six  full  years  (dKodo/uf/Vr/),  brings  us,  therefore,  as  far  as  to  the  au- 
tumn of  the  year  780.  The  present  Passover,  consequently,  must  be  that 
of  the  year  781,  and  as  it  was  divided  from  the  year  in  which  Jesus  died 
by  the  one  alluded  to  in  vi.  4,  it  follows  therefrom,  that  Jesus  died  in 
783.  Now  for  many  other  reasons,  that  year  seems  really  to  have  been 
the  year  of  His  death.  Weiss  objects  that  the  expression  :  was  built,  does 
not  necessarily  imply  that  it  was  still  in  the  course  of  building  at  that 
moment.  But  the  work  continued  still  for  many  years,  until  in  64  it  was 
finished  under  Agrippa  II.  What  reason  could  there  be  to  suppose  an 
interruption  at  the  time  in  which  our  narrative  places  us? 

Ver.  121.  "  Bid  he  spoke  of  the  temple  of  his  body."  By  inelvos,  ille  vero,  he 
opposed  to  every  other,  John  strongly  contrasts  the  thought  of  Jesus 
with  the  interpretation  of  the  Jews  and  the  want  of  understanding  of  the 
apostles.  Only  He  comprehends  perfectly  the  true  sense  of  His  own 
saying. 

Ver.  22.  "  Whe7i,  therefore,  he  was  risen  from  the,  dead,  his  disciples  remem- 
bered that  he  had  said  this,1  and  they  believed  the  Scripture  and  the  word  which 
Jesus  had  said."  Into  docile  hearts  the  light  came,  although  slowly.  The 
event  explained  the  word,  as  in  its  turn  the  word  contributed  to  disclose 
the  deep  meaning  of  the  event.  It  is  surprising  to  meet  here  the  limiting 
words  ry  ypa<j>y,  the  Scripture ;  for  the  Scripture  had  not  been  quoted  by 
Jesus,  unless  we  think,  with  Weiss,  of  ver.  17,  which  is  unnatural  in  view 
of  the  formal  opposition  established  by  ver.  22  between  the  time  of  the  one 
and  that  of  the  other  reminiscence.  The  evangelist  undoubtedly  wishes 
to  intimate  that  the  first  point  on  which  the  light  fell,  in  the  hearts  of  the 
apostles,  after  the  resurrection,  was  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament 
which  announced  that  event  (Ps.  xvi. ;  Is.  liii. ;  Hos.  vi. ;  the  prophet 
Jonah),  and  that  it  was  by  the  intermediate  agency  of  the  interpreted 
prophecies  that  the  present  word  of  Jesus  came  back  to  their  remem- 
brance and  was  also  made  clear  to  them. 

This  little  point  which  belongs  to  the  inner  biography  of  the  apostles, 
stamps  the  narrative  with  the  seal  of  historical  reality.     Let  the  reader 

1 T.  R.  wrongly  adds  aurois  {to  them),  with  K  and  some  Mnn. 
24 


370  FIRST   PART. 

picture  to  himself,  with  Baur,  a  pseudo-John,  in  the  second  century, 
inventing  this  momentary  want  of  intelligence  in  the  disciples  with  regard 
to  a  saying  which  he  had  himself  ascribed  to  Jesus !  The  moral  impossi- 
bility of  such  a  strange  charlatanism  as  this  is  obvious.  This  remark 
applies  to  the  similar  points,  iv.  32,  33;  vii.  39;  xi.  12;  xii.  16,  33; 
xiii.  28,  etc. 

The  Synoptics  relate  an  act  of  Jesus  similar  to  this;  which  they  place 
at  the  beginning  of  the  week  of  the  Passion,  either  on  Palm-day  (Matt. 
xxi. ;  Luke  xix.),  or  more  exactly  on  the  next  day  after  that  (Mark  xi.). 
We  might  naturally  enough  suppose  that  these  three  evangelists,  having 
omitted  all  the  first  year  of  Jesus'  ministry,  were  led  thereby  to  locate 
this  event  in  the  only  visit  to  Jerusalem  of  which  they  relate  the  story. 
This  is  the  opinion  of  Liicket  de  Wette,  Ewald,  Weiss,  etc.  Keim  goes  much 
further;  he  claims  that  it  would  have  been  the  grossest  want  of  tact  on 
Jesus'  part  thus  at  the  start  to  advertise  His  Messiahship,  and  to  break 
with  the  old  Judaism  as  He  does  in  John.  But  what  gives  to  the  corpo- 
real act  its  meaning  and  its  character  is  the  words  with  which  Jesus 
accompanies  it.  Now  these  words,  which  constitute  the  soul  of  the  nar- 
rative, are  very  different  in  the  Synoptics  and  in  John,  to  such  a  degree 
that  it  would  be  impossible  to  unite  them  in  one  consecutive  discourse. 
In  the  Synoptics,  Jesus  claims,  on  the  ground  of  Is.  lvi.  7  ("  My  house 
shall  be  called  a  house  of  prayer  for  all  peoples  "),  the  right  of  the  Gentiles  to 
the  place  which,  from  the  beginning,  had  been  conceded  to  them  in  the 
temple  (1  Kings  viii.  41-43).  In  John,  there  is  no  trace  of  this  intention ; 
Jesus  has  in  view  Israel  itself  and  only  Israel.  This  difference,  as  well  as 
the  characteristic  reply,  John  ii.  19,  argues  two  distinct  events.  If,  as  Ave 
may  not  doubt,  the  abuse  which  is  in  question  really  existed  at  the  moment 
when  Jesus  presented  Himself  for  the  first  time  as  Messiah,  and  as  Son 
of  God,  it  was  impossible  that  He  should  tolerate  it.  It  would  have  been 
to  declare  Himself  Messiah  and  abdicate  the  Messianic  office  by  one  act. 
Thus  John's  narrative  is  self-justified.  But  it  is,  also,  wholly  true  that  if, 
after  having  been  reduced  during  more  than  two  years  to  the  simple 
activity  of  a  prophet,  Jesus  wished  to  reassume  on  Palm-Sunday  His  office 
as  Messiah-King,  and  thus  to  take  up  again  a  connection  with  His  begin- 
nings, He  could  not  do  so  better  than  by  repeating  that  act  by  which  He 
had  entered  upon  His  career,  and  by  repressing  again  that  abuse  which 
had  not  been  slow  in  reproducing  itself.  By  the  first  expulsion  He  had 
invited  the  people  to  the  reformation  which  could  save  them ;  by  the 
second,  He  protested  against  the  profane  spirit  which  was  about  to  de- 
stroy them.  Thus  the  narrative  of  John  and  the  Synoptic  narrative 
equally  justify  themselves.  This  contrast  between  the  two  situations 
agrees  with  the  difference  between  the  words  uttered.  In  John,  seeing 
His  appeal  repelled,  Jesus  thinks  of  His  death,  the  fatal  limit  of  that 
first  rejection ;  in  the  Synoptics,  seeing  the  fall  of  Israel  consummated, 
He  proclaims  the  right  of  the  Gentiles,  who  are  soon  going  to  be  substi- 
tuted for  the  Jews.  As  for  Keim'%  objection,  this  author  forgets  that,  by 
acting  in  this  way,  Jesus  made  an  appeal  precisely  to  that  which  was 


chap.  ii.  23.  371 

deepest  in  the  consciousness  of  every  true  member  of  the  theocracy, 
respect  for  the  temple.  Beyschlag  has  justly  called  this  proceeding  on  the 
part  of  Jesus,  "  the  most  profoundly  conservative  Jewish  act."  It  was 
precisely  the  wonderful  character  of  this  act,  that  it  inaugurated  the 
revolution  which  was  preparing,  by  connecting  it  with  that  which  was 
most  vital  in  the  Israelitish  past. 

II. — Jesus  at  Jerusalem :  ii.  23-iii.  21. 

Jesus,  not  having  been  welcomed  in  the  temple,  does  not  force  matters 
forward.  The  use  of  violence,  even  though  by  divine  means,  would  have 
led  Him  to  the  career,  not  of  a  Christ,  but  of  a  Mahomet.  In  presence  of 
the  cold  reserve  which  He  meets,  He  retreats ;  and  this  retrograde  move- 
ment characterizes,  for  a  time,  the  course  of  His  work.  The  palace  has 
just  shut  its  doors  to  Him ;  the  capital  remains  open.  Here  He  acts,  yet 
no  longer  in  the  fullness  of  that  Messianic  sovereignty  with  which  He  had 
presented  Himself  in  the  temple.  He  confines  Himself  to  teaching  and 
miracles,  the  two  prophetic  agencies.  Such  is  the  admirable  elasticity  of 
the  divine  work  in  the  midst  of  the  world ;  it  advances  only  as  far  as  faith 
permits;  in  the  face  of  resistance  it  yields;  it  retires  even  to  its  last  en- 
trenchment. Then,  having  reached  this,  it  all  at  once  resumes  the  offen- 
sive, and,  engaging  in  the  last  struggle,  succumbs  externally,  to  conquer 
morally. 

Vv.  23-25  are  a  preamble.  It  is  the  general  picture  of  the  activity  of 
the  Lord  at  Jerusalem,  following  after  His  undertaking  in  the  temple. 
Then,  in  the  following  passage,  iii.  1-21,  John  gives  the  remarkable  ex- 
ample of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  and  of  His  Messianic  testimony,  in  thi3 
earliest  period,  in  presence  of  those  whom  He  found  disposed  to  faith. 

Ver.  23.  "As  he  was  in  Jerusalem,  at  the  Passover,  at  the  feast,  many  be- 
lieved on  his  name,  seeing  the  miracles  which  he  did." — The  first  clause  of  the 
verse  contains  three  designations.  One  is  that  of  place :  in  Jerusalem,,  at 
the  centre  of  the  theocracy,  the  normal  theatre  of  His  work.  The  second 
is  that  of  time:  at  the  Passover,  in  those  days  when  the  whole  people  were 
assembled  in  the  capital,  in  greater  numbers  than  on  any  other  occasion 
in  the  year.  The  third  designation  is  that  of  the  mode :  at  the  feast,  in  the 
midst  of  the  solemn  impressions  which  the  daily  ceremonies  of  that  Pas- 
chal week  awakened.  The  pronoun  nolloi,  many,  denotes  nothing  more 
than  individuals ;  they  form  a  contrast  with  the  nation  which  should  have 
collectively  believed.  Comp.  the  contrast  between  oi  Itiioi,  His  own,  and 
boot,  all  those  who,  i.  11,  12.  But  a  still  more  sorrowful  contrast  is  pointed 
out  by  the  evangelist ;  it  is  that  which  existed  between  the  faith  of  these 
believers  and  true  faith.  Their  faith,  to  the  view  of  Jesus,  was  not  faith. 
No  doubt,  it  had  for  its  object  His  revelation  as  Christ  and  Son  of  God 
(His  name) ;  but  it  rested  only  upon  the  external  fact  of  His  miracles. 
The  logical  relation  between  this  aorist  believed  and  the  present  participle 
seeing,  is  expressed  by  the  conjunction  because.  This  faith  had  nothing 
inward  and  moral ;  it  resulted  solely  from  the  impression  of  astonishment 


372  FIRST   PART. 

produced  upon  them  by  these  wonders.  Signs  may,  indeed,  strengthen 
and  develop  true  faith,  where  it  is  already  formed,  by  displaying  to  it 
fully  the  riches  of  its  object  (ii.  11).  They  may  even,  sometimes,  excite 
attention ;  but  not  produce  real  faith.  Faith  is  a  moral  act  which  at- 
taches itself  to  the  moral  being  in  Jesus.  The  last  words  :  which  lie  did, 
depict,  indeed,  the  nature  of  this  faith ;  it  was  the  material  operation 
which  impressed  these  persons.  These  miracles  were,  undoubtedly, 
numerous ;  allusion  is  made  to  them  in  iv.  45.  John  relates,  however, 
only  one  of  them;  so  far  different  is  His  aim  from  that  of  the  Synoptics. 
He  wishes  only  to  describe  here  a  spiritual  situation. 

Ver.  24,  25.  "  But  Jesus  did  not  trust  himself  to  them,  because  he  kneiv  all 
men,  25,  and  because  he  had  no  need  that  any  one  should  testify  of  man  ;  for  he 
knew  of  himself  what  was  in  man."  Jesus  is  no  more  dazzled  by  this  appar- 
ent success,  than  He  had  been  discouraged  by  the  reverse  which  He  had 
undergone  in  the  temple.  He  discerns  the  insufficient  nature  of 
this  faith.  There  is  a  sort  of  play  upon  words  in  the  relation  between 
ovk  EiriffTEvev,  He  did  not  believe,  did  not  trust  Himself,  and  hnioTevoav,  they  be' 
limed,  ver.  23.  While  they  considering  only  the  external  facts,  the  mira- 
cles, believed,  He  (avrbq  fie)  not  stopping  with  appearances,  did  not  believe  ; 
He  did  not  have  faith  in  their  faith.  It  is  because  He  did  not  recognize  in 
it  the  work  of  God.  Consequently,  He  did  not  any  more  treat  them  as 
believers.  How  was  this  attitude  of  distrust  manifested?  It  is  difficult  to 
state  precisely.  Probably  the  point  in  John's  thought  was  rather  a  cer- 
tain reserve  of  a  moral  nature,  than  positive  external  acts,  such  as  reti- 
cence respecting  His  doctrine  or  the  solitude  in  which  He  shut  Himself 
up.  Luthardt,  "As  they  did  not  give  themselves  morally  to  Him,  He  did 
not  give  Himself  morally  to  them."  It  is  a  profound  observer  initiated 
into  the  impressions  of  Jesus'  mind, — this  man  who  has  laid  hold  of  and 
set  forth  this  delicate  feature  of  His  conduct.  If  he  was  himself  one  of 
the  disciples  whose  call  is  related  in  chap,  i.,  he  must  indeed  have  felt  the 
difference  between  the  conduct  of  Jesus  towards  these  persons,  and  the 
manner  in  which  He  had  deported  Himself  towards  himself  and  his  fel- 
low-disciples. Let  one  picture  to  himself  such  a  feature  invented  in  the 
second  century !  Nothing  in  the  text  obliges  us  to  identify  this  superior 
knowledge  of  Jesus  with  divine  omniscience.  The  evangelist  undoubtedly 
knew  for  himself  that  clear  and  penetrating  look  {ififtlEnELv)  which  read  in 
the  depth  of  the  heart  as  in  an  ppen  book.  This  superior  knowledge  of 
Jesus  is  the  highest  degree  of  the  gift  of  the  discerning  of  spirits  (1  Cor.  xii. 
10 ;  1  John  iv.  1). 

The  clause  :  and  because  ....  etc.,  generalizes  the  statement  of  ver.  24. 
It  signifies  that,  in  any  case,  Jesus  did  not  need  to  have  recourse  to  infor- 
mation, in  order  to  know  what  He  had  to  think  of  such  or  such  a  man. 
This  faculty  of  discernment  was  inherent  in  His  person  (He  Himself )  and, 
consequently,  permanent  (imperfect,  knew).  "Iva,  in  order  tJwtt,  is  here  no 
more  than  elsewhere  the  simple  periphrasis  for  the  infinitive  (in  opposi- 
tion to  Weiss).  The  idea  of  purpose,  which  remains  always  attached  to 
this  word,  is  explained  oy  the  tendency,  which  is  inherent  in  the  need  of 


chap.  ii.  24,  25.  373 

knowledge,  to  satisfy  itself.  The  article  rot-  before  avdpunov, "  the  man,"  may- 
be explained  either  in  the  generic  sense  :  man  in  general,  or,  what  is  perhaps 
more  correct,  in  an  altogether  individual  sense  :  the  man  with  whom  He 
had  to  do  in  each  given  case  (Meyer).  But  even  in  this  last  explanation, 
the  generic  sense  can  be  applied  to  ev  -u  avOpurru,  in  the  man,  in  the  follow- 
ing clause.  The  for  would  mean  that  He  knew  thus  each  representative 
of  the  type,  because  He  knew  thoroughly  the  type  itself.  However,  it  is 
more  simple  to  give  to  this  expression :  in  the  mein,  the  same  individual 
sense  as  in  the  preceding  clause,  and  to  explain  the  for  by  the  word : 
Himself.    He  had  no  need  of  information;  for  of  Himself  He  knew  .  .  . 

On  the  foundation  of  this  general  situation,  there  is  brought  out  sepa- 
rately, as  a  particular  picture,  the  scene  of  the  conversation  with  Nicode- 
mus.  Is  this  incident  quoted  as  an  example  of  that  Jewish  faith  which  is 
nothing  but  a  form  of  unbelief  ii.  23  (comp.  ver.  2),  as  Baur  thinks,  or,  on 
the  contrary,  as  an  exception  to  the  attitude  full  of  reserve  which  was  as- 
sumed by  Jesus  and  described  vv.  24,  25  (Ewald)!  The  opinion  of  Baur 
strikes  against  the  fact  that  Nicodemus  later  became  a  believer  (chaps, 
vii.  and  xix.),  so  that  the  example  would  have  been  very  badly  chosen. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  text  gives  no  more  indication  that  the  following 
occurrence  is  related  as  a  deviation  from  the  line  of  conduct  traced  in  ii. 
24;  and  ver.  2  even  makes  Nicodemus  belong  in  the  class  of  persons  de- 
scribed in  vv.  23-25.  Liicke  sees  in  this  narrative  only  an  example  of  the 
supernatural  knowledge  of  Jesus,  but  this  idea  does  not  correspond  suffi- 
ciently with  the  very  grave  contents  of  the  conversation.  In  Retiss'  view, 
Nicodemus  is  a  type,  created  by  the  evangelist,  of  that  "  literary  and 
learned  Judaism  whose  knowledge  is  nothing,  and  which  has  everything 
to  learn  from  Jesus."  But  Nicodemus  reappears  twice  afterwards,  playing 
a  part  in  the  history  of  Jesus  (chs.  vii.  and  xix.) ;  he  was  not,  therefore, 
created  only  in  order  to  give  Jesus  here  the  opportunity  to  convince  him 
of  ignorance.  If  the  author  inserted  this  incident  in  his  narrative,  it  is 
because  he  saw  in  it  the  most  memorable  example  of  the  revelation  which 
Jesus  had  given,  in  the  first  period  of  His  ministry,  of  His  person  and 
His  work  ;  comp.  Weiss  and  Keil. 

The  part  of  this  conversation  in  our  Gospel  may  be  compared  with  that 
of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  in  the  Gospel  of  Matthew :  these  two  pas- 
sages have  an  inauguratory  character.  As  for  Nicodemus,  he  is  at  once 
an  example  and  an  exception  :  an  example,  since  miracles  were  the  occa- 
sion of  his  faith ;  an  exception,  since  the  manner  in  which  Jesus  treats 
him  proves  that  He  hopes  for  the  happy  development  of  this  faith.  The 
faith  characterized  vv.  23-25,  ns  Luthardt  observes,  is  not  real  faith ;  but 
none  the  more  is  it  unbelief.  From  this  point  there  may  be  falling  back 
or  advance. — How  did  the  evangelist  get  the  knowledge  of  this  conversa- 
tion? May  Jesus  or  Nicodemus  have  related  it  to  him?  The  first  alter- 
native (Meyer)  has  somewhat  of  improbability.  In  the  second,  it  is  asked 
whether  Nicodemus  understood  well  enough  to  retain  it  so  thoroughly. 
Why  could  not  John  himself  have  been  present  at  the  interview,  even 
though  it  took  place  at  night  ?    Comp.  ver.  11. 


374  FIRST   PART. 

But  this  question  is  subordinnte  to  another.  Is  not  this  conversation 
itself,  as  we  have  it  before  us,  a  free  composition  of  the  author  in  which 
he  has  united  different  elements  of  the  ordinary  teaching  of  his  master,  or 
even,  as  Keim  says,  put  into  His  mouth  a  highly  spiritual  summary  of  his 
own  semi-Gnostic  dogmatics?  Finally,  without  going  so  far,  can  it  not  be 
supposed,  at  least,  that  the  subjectivity  of  the  author  has,  without  his  hav- 
ing a  suspicion  of  it  himself,  influenced  this  account  more  or  less,  espe- 
cially towards  the  end  of  the  conversation  ?  This  is  what  we  shall  have 
to  examine.  For  this  purpose,  what  shall  be  our  touch-stone  ?  If  the 
direct,  natural  application  of  the  words  of  Jesus  to  Nicodemus  the  Phar- 
isee is  sustained  even  to  the  end,  we  shall  recognize  by  this  sign  the  authen- 
ticity of  the  account.  If,  on  the  contrary,  the  discourse  loses  itself,  as  it 
advances,  in  vague  generalities,  without  appropriateness  and  without  di- 
rect relation  to  the  given  situation,  we  shall  find  in  this  fact  the  indication 
of  a  more  or  less  artificial  composition. 

Ver.  1.  "  There  was  a  man  of  the  Pharisees,  ivhose  name  was  Nicodemus,  one 
of  the  rulers  of  the  Jews."  The  name  Nicodemus,  though  of  Greek  origin, 
was  not  unusual  among  the  Jews.  The  Talmud  mentions  several  times  a 
person  of  this  name  (Nakedimon),  called  also  Bounai,  reckoned  in  the 
numher  of  Jesus'  disciples.  He  was  one  of  the  four  richest  inhabitants  of 
the  capital.  His  family  fell  into  the  greatest  destitution.  He  must  have 
been  alive  also  at  the  time  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  This  last  cir- 
cumstance, connected  with  the  great  age  of  Nicodemus  at  the  time  of 
Jesus'  ministry,  renders  the  identity  of  the  latter  with  the  personage  of 
whom  the  Talmud  speaks,  doubtful.  Stier  saw  in  the  word  avdpuKo%-,  a  man,  an 
allusion  to  ii.  25 ;  John  would  remind  us  thereby  that  Nicodemus  was  an 
example  of  that  human  type  which  Jesus  knew  so  well ;  this  is  far-fetched. 
Before  naming  him,  John  points  out  his  quality  as  Pharisee.  This  charac- 
teristic signifies  much  more,  indeed,  than  his  name,  for  the  understand- 
ing of  the  following  conversation.  The  most  narrow  and  exalted  national 
particularism  had  created  for  itself  an  organ  in  the  Pharisaic  party.  Ac- 
cording to  the  ideas  of  that  sect,  every  Jew  possessing  the  legal  virtues 
and  qualities  had  a  right  of  entrance  into  the  Messianic  kingdom.  XJni- 
verso  Israeli  est  portio  in  mundo  futuro,  said  the  Rabbis.  The  Messiah  Him- 
self was  only  the  perfect  and  all-powerful  Jew,  who,  raised  by  His  miracles 
to  the  summit  of  glory,  was  to  destroy  the  Gentile  power  and  place  Israel 
at  the -head  of  humanity.  This  Messianic  programme,  which  the  imagi- 
nation of  the  Pharisaic  doctors  had  drawn  out  of  the  prophecies,  was  that 
which  brought  with  it  Nicodemus  to  the  presence  of  Jesus.  The  title 
apxw,  ruler,  denotes,  undoubtedly,  one  of  the  lay  members  of  the  Sanhe- 
drim (vii.  50),  in  contrast  to  the  apxi£P£k,  chief  priests  (vii.  50;  Luke 
xxiii.  13). 

Ver.  2.  "  He  came  to  him l  by  night  and  said :  Master,  we  know  that  thou  art 
a  teacher'come  from  God;  for  no  one  can  do  these  miracles  which  thou  doest, 

1 6  Byz.  Syr**,  read  ir/»o?  tov  Ijj<rovv  instead  of  n-pos  avrov  (a  correction  with  a  view  t» 
public  reading). 


chap.  in.  1-3.  375 

except  God  be  with  him." — What  was  the  purpose  of  this  visit  ?  These  first 
words  of  Nicodemus  are  only  a  preamble  ;  it  would  be  idle  to  seek  hero 
the  revelation  of  the  purpose  of  his  procedure.  Koppe  has  supposed  that 
he  came  to  act  as  a  spy  on  the  Lord.  But  Jesus  treats  him  as  an  honest 
person,  and  Nicodemus  shows  himself  sincere  during  the  course  of  the 
conversation,  and  also  afterwards.  Meyer  has  supposed  that  he  came  to 
inquire  about  the  way  to  be  saved.  But  as  a  good  Jew  and  pious  Pharisee, 
he  by  no  means  doubted  as  to  his  own  salvation.  We  must,  rather,  sup- 
pose that  he  had  discerned  in  Jesus  an  extraordinary  being,  and  as  he 
must  have  known  the  answer  of  the  forerunner  to  the  deputation  of  the 
Sanhedrim,  he  asked  himself  seriously  whether  Jesus  might  not  be  the 
Messiah  announced  by  John  as  already  present.  In  that  case  he  would 
try  to  sound  His  plans  respecting  the  decisive  revolution  which  His 
coming  was  to  involve.  This  supposition  appears  to  me  more  natural 
than  that  of  Weiss,  who,  because  of  the  title  of  teacher  with  which  Nico- 
demus salutes  Jesus,  thinks  that  he  wished  to  question  Him  concerning 
what  new  teaching  He  had  just  given.  But  Nicodemus  evidently  could 
not  salute  Jesus  by  any  other  title  than  that  of  teacher,  even  if,  as  he  must 
have  had  from  the  testimony  of  John  the  Baptist  and  in  consequence 
of  the  expulsion  of  the  traders,  he  had  a  presentiment  that  there  was  in 
Him  something  still  greater.  The  plural  olda/nev,  we  knoiv,  proves  that  He 
did  not  take  this  step  solely  in  his  own  name,  but  that  a  certain  number 
of  his  colleagues  entertained  the  same  thoughts  with  himself. — He  comes 
by  night.  This  circumstance,  noticed  expressly  in  xix.  39  and  perhaps 
also  in  vii.  50,"  is  easily  explained  by  the  fear  which  he  had  of  compromis- 
ing himself  before  the  other  members  of  the  Sanhedrim,  and  even  before 
the  people.  Perhaps,  also,  he  wished  to  avoid  further  increasing,  through 
a  step  taken  in  broad  daylight,  the  reputation  of  the  young  teacher. 
Nicodemus  gives  Him  the  title  of  pa(3(3i,  Master;  this  is  saying  very  much, 
on  his  part;  since  Jesus  had  not  passed  through  the  different  degrees  of 
rabbinical  studies  which  gave  a  right  to  this  title.  Comp.  vii.  15  :  "  The 
Jeivs  were  astonished,  saying :  How  does  this  man  know  the  Scriptures,  not  being 
a  man  who  has  studied?"  It  is  precisely  this  extraordinary  course  of  the 
development  of  Jesus  which  Nicodemus  characterizes  by  saying  :  a  teacher 
come  from  God.  'A-d  Oeov,  from  God,  is  placed  at  the  beginning  as  the 
principal  idea,  opposed  to  that  of  a  regular  doctorate.  The  same  contrast 
is  found  in  vii.  1G  in  the  mouth  of  Jesus  Himself.  This  designation : 
from  God,  depends  neither  on  the  verb,  come,  nor  on  the  word  teacher, 
separately,  but  on  the  complex  phrase  ;  the  sense  is  :  "come  as  a  teacher 
from  God."  The  argument  is  consonant  with  theocratic  precedents 
(Exod.  iv.).  Miracles  prove  divine  assistance,  and  this  proves  the  divine 
mission.  But  this  formal  demonstration,  intended  to  prove  to  Jesus  a 
truth  which  he  does  not  doubt,  is  somewhat  pedantic  and  must  have 
shocked  the  ear  of  Him  to  whom  it  was  addressed.  So  Jesus  cuts  short 
the  discourse  thus  commenced  by  a  sudden  apostrophe,  intended  rather 
to  answer  the  inmost  thoughts  of  His  interlocutor  than  his  spoken  words. 
Ver.  3.  "  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  him :  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you, 


376  FIRST   PART. 

Except  a  man  be  born  anew,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God." — The  relation 
of  this  answer  to  the  words  of  Nicodemus  has  been  differently  understood, 
for  the  very  reason  that  He  was  not  able  to  finish  the  expression  of  His 
thought.  Meyer,  in  conformity  with  his  supposition  indicated  above, 
interprets  this  answer  thus  :  "  Every  particular  work  is  unfitted  to  open 
the  door  of  the  kingdom  of  God ;  there  must  be  a  radical  regeneration." 
But  we  have  seen  that  Nicodemus,  the  Pharisee,  could  not  have  come 
with  the  thought  which  Meyer  supposes.  Baumgarten-Crusius  and  Weiss, 
starting  from  the  title  of  teacher  which  he  had  given  Him,  think  that 
Jesus  means  to  say  :  "  It  is  not  a  new  teaching  only  that  you  need,  it  is  a 
new  birth."  According  to  our  previous  remarks,  we  think,  rather,  with 
Luthardt,  that,  on  hearing  the  first  words  of  Nicodemus,  the  whole  Phari- 
saic programme  with  relation  to  the  kingdom  of  God  presented  itself 
vividly  to  the  mind  of  Jesus,  and  that  He  felt  the  need  of  directly  opposing 
to  it  the  true  divine  plan  touching  this  capital  subject.  Nicodemus  believes 
that  he  discerns  in  the  appearance  of  Jesus  the  dawn  of  the  Messianic 
kingdom,  such  as  he  conceived  it ;  Jesus  reveals  to  him  an  altogether 
spiritual  conception  of  that  kingdom,  and,  consequently,  of  all  other 
moral  conditions  for  entrance  into  it :  "  It  is  not  a  glorified  earthly  life ; 
it  is  not  a  matter  of  expelling  the  Eoman  legions  and  of  going  to  conquer 
the  Capitol !  The  true  kingdom  of  God  is  a  state  of  the  soul,  the  submis- 
sion of  the  heart  to  the  Divine  will ;  to  enter  it,  there  must  be  wrought 
within  the  man  a  work  at  once  spiritual  and  individual,  which  has 
nothing  in  common  with  the  great  political  drama  which  thou  hast  in 
view."  It  is,  then,  the  full  security  in  which  Nicodemus  is  living  with 
regard  to  his  participation  in  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah,  that  Jesus 
wishes  to  break' up,  by  answering  him  in  this  way.  We  have  in  Luke 
xvii.  20,  21,  a  parallel  which  offers  the  best  commentary  on  our  passage. 
"  When  cometh  the  kingdom  of  God  ?  "  a  group  of  Pharisees  ask  of  Jesus. 
"The  kingdom  of  God  cometh  not  with  observation,"  Jesus  answers; 
"  it  is  within  you."  The  coincidence  could  not  be  more  complete.  The 
formula  amen,  amen,  implies  a  doubt  in  the  hearer's  mind  (see  i.  52) ;  the 
doubt  implied  here  is  that  which  naturally  arises  from  the  Pharisaic  pre- 
judices of  Nicodemus.  "  The  pious  Jew,  the  honored  Pharisee,  the 
powerful  ruler,  Nicodemus  is  prostrated,"  says  Hengstenberg,  "at  the  shock 
of  this,  verily."  The  solemn  expression  :  "  I  say  unto  thee,"  or  "  I  declare 
to  thee,"  recalls  to  Nicodemus'that  dignity  of  divine  teacher  which  he  has 
himself  just  attributed  to  Jesus.  By  the  indeterminate  formula :  if  any 
one,  Jesus  avoids  the  harshness  which  the  direct  application  to  such  an 
old  man  would  have  involved.  The  word  avudev  has,  in  the  three  other 
passages  where  John  uses  it  (ver.  31;  xix.  11,  23)  the  local  meaning:  from 
above,  that  is  to  say,  from  heaven.  The  passages,  also,  may  be  compared 
in  which  he  makes  use  of  the  expression:  to  be  bom  of  God;  for  example, 
i.  13,  and  in  the  1st  Epistle  ii.  29,  iii.  9,  etc.;  nine  times  in  all.  These 
parallel  passages  seem  decisive  and  have  determined  a  large  number 
of  interpreters  (Origen,  Erasmus,  Liicke,  de  Wette,  Meyer,  Bdumlein,  Renss, 
etc.)  to  adopt  this  meaning  here.    But  may  we  not  also  conclude  from  the 


chap.  in.  3.  377 

last  passages  cited  that  if  this  were  the  idea  which  John  wished  to  express, 
he  would  rather  have  employed  the  expression  in  deoii,  of  Godf  The 
misunderstanding  of  Nicodemus  (ver.  4)  is  more  easily  explained,  if  Jesus 
said  in  Aramaic  :  anew,  than  from  above,  since  even  in  this  latter  case,  also 
Nicodemus  might  have  spoken  of  a  second  birth.  At  all  events,  it  follows 
from  the  expressions :  a  second  time,  (tievrepov)  and  his  mother's  womb,  that, 
if  he  thought  of  a  birth  coming  from  above,  he  understood  this  term  in 
the  sense  in  which  it  can  be  applied  even  to  the  natural  birth, — that  is  to 
say,  that  every  child  who  is  born  comes  from  God,  descends  from  heaven. 
However,  if  the  word  avudev  expressed  here  such  a  striking  idea,  the 
emphasis  would  be  laid  upon  this  word,  and,  in  that  case,  it  ought  to  be 
placed  before  the  verb.  Placed  after  the  verb,  avudev  only  strengthens  the 
idea  of  beginning  connected  with  that  of  being  born,  which  leads  us  to 
give  to  this  adverb  the  temporal,  rather  than  the  local  sense :  from  the 
beginning.  We  have  three  striking  examples  of  this  sense  of  avudev. 
Josephus  says  (Antiqq.  i.  18,  3):  tyikiav  avudev  notelrai;  he  contracts  friend- 
ship with  him,  going  back  to  the  beginning,  that  is,  as  if  they  entered  for  the 
first  time  into  mutual  relations.  Tholuck  cites,  the  following  passage  of 
Artemidorus  (Oneirocriticon  i.  14) :  A  father  dreaming  that  his  wife  gives 
birth  to  a  child  exactly  like  himself,  says :  "  that  he  seems  to  himself 
avudev  yewacdai,  to  be  born  from  the  beginning,  to  recommence  his  own 
existence."  In  the  Acta  Pauli,  Jesus  says  to  Peter,  who  is  flying  from 
martyrdom  and  to  whom  He  presents  Himself :  avudev  [iflXu  oravpudijvai, 
"  I  am  going  to  begin  anew  my  crucifixion."  Compare  also  in  the  New 
Testament,  Luke  i.  3 ;  Acts  xxvi.  5 ;  and  Gal.  iv.  9.  In  this  last  passage 
avudev  is  completed  by  na'Aiv :  "entering  from  the  beginning  into  a  state 
of  slavery  which  will  be  the  second."  This  sense  of  avudev  can  scarcely 
be  given  in  French.  The  expression  tout  a  neuf  would  best  answer  to  it. 
The  sense  is:  to  place  in  the  course  of  the  earthly  life  a  beginning  as  new 
as  birth  itself.  There  is  nothing  to  oppose  this  sense,  philologically, 
according  to  the  examples  cited.  And  it  makes  the  answer  of  Nicodemus 
more  easily  understood.  The  word  to  see  is  perhaps  connected  with  to  be 
born;  a  new  sight  implies  a  new  life.  Sight  is  often  the  symbol  of  enjoy- 
ment, as  well  as  of  suffering  (viii.  51).  In  the  old  covenant,  the  kingdom 
of  God  was  realized  in  a  politico-religious  form.  From  this  temporary 
envelopment,  Jesus  freed  the  spiritual  principle  which  forms  the  true  foun- 
dation of  that  state  of  things,  the  submission  of  the  human  will  to  the 
divine  will,  in  one  word,  holiness  (comp.  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount);  and 
from  this  principle  He  derives  a  new  order  of  things  which  is  first  realized 
in  individuals,  and  which  brings  about  thereby  the  renewal  of  society,  and 
finally  is  to  transform  nature  itself.  For  it  is  false  to  exclude,  as  Reuss 
does  (Hist,  de  la  thiol,  chret.  t.  II.,  pp.  555  f.),  the  social  and  final  conse- 
quences of  the  notion  of  the  kingdom  of  God  in  the  sense  of  our  Gospel. 
The  eschatological  hopes  attached  to  this  term  in  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments are  found  again  in  full  in  v.  28,  29;  vi.  39,  40,  44,  54.  Meyer  calls 
attention  to  the  fact  that  the  term  kingdom  of  God  does  not  again  appear 
anywhere  else  in  John,  and  rightly  finds  in  this  fact  a  proof  of  the  truly 


378  FIRST   PART. 

historical  character  of  the  narrative  which  occupies  our  attention.  If,  as 
Renan  thinks,  Jesus  had  been  only  a  young  enthusiast,  obedient  to  a 
mission  which  He  had  assumed  for  Himself,  would  He  not  have  been 
flattered  by  seeing  such  considerable  personages  as  Nicodemus  and  those 
whom  he  represented  (ver.  1)  as  well  as  the  colleagues  in  whose  name  he 
spoke,  ranked  among  the  number  of  his  adherents,  and  would  not  this 
feeling  have  borne  Him  on,  at  this  moment,  to  entirely  different  language? 
The  assured  feeling  of  the  divinity  and  holiness  of  His  missson  alone 
could,  in  the  face  of  this  success,  keep  Him  from  a  false  step. 

Ver.  4.  "Nicodemus  says  to  him:  Mow  can  a  man  be  born  when  he  is 
old  f  He  cannot  enter  a  second  time,  can  he,  into  his  mother's  womb  and  be 
born  f"  This  saying,  to  the  view  of  several  modern  critics,  is  a  master-piece 
of  improbability.  Reuss  thinks  that  "  it  is  indeed,  wrong  to  try  to  give  to 
this  answer  a  meaning  even  in  the  smallest  degree  plausible  or  defensible." 
Schleiermacher  proposes  to  explain  thus  :  "  It  is  impossible,  at  my  age,  to 
recommence  a  new  moral  life."  Tholuck,  Bdumlein  and  Hengstenberg, 
nearly  the  same :  "  What  thou  askest  of  me  is  as  impossible  as  that  a  man 
should  enter  again.  ..  ."  These  explanations  evidently  weaken  the  mean- 
ing of  the  text.  Meyer  thinks  that  the  embarrassment  into  which  the  say- 
ing of  Jesus  throws  Nicodemus,  leads  him  to  say  something  absurd.  Lange 
finds  rather  a  certain  irritation  in  this  answer :  The  Pharisee  would  attempt 
to  engage  in  a  rabbinical  discussion  in  order  to  show  Jesus  the  exaggera- 
tion of  His  demands.  These  suppositions  have  little  probability.  Would 
Jesus  speak  as  He  does  in  the  sequel  to  a  man  so  narrow-minded  or  so 
irritable?'  Liicke  explains:  "Thou  canst  not,  by  any  means,  mean  that 
.  .  .?"  This  explanation  is  philologically  accurate;  it  faithfully  renders 
the  meaning  of  the  negative  p)  (comp.  our  translation).  As  Weiss  observes, 
Nicodemus  does  not  answer  thus  as  a  man  wanting  in  understanding ;  but 
he  is  offended  at  seeing  Jesus  propose  to  him  such  a  condition ;  he  refuses 
to  enter  into  His  thought,  and,  holding  firmly  to  the  literal  sense,  he  limits 
himself  to  a  setting  forth  of  its  absurdity.  The  manner  in  which  he 
expresses  this  impression  does  not  seem  even  to  be  entirely  free  from  irony. 
It  is  because  in  truth,  he  cannot  conceive  how  the  beginning  of  another  life 
can  be  placed  in  the  womb  of  the  natural  existence.  The  kingdom  of  God 
has  always  appeared  to  him  as  the  most  glorious  form  of  the  earthly  exist- 
ence itself.  To  what  purpose  a  new  birth,  in  order  to  enter  into  it?  The 
Old  Testament  spoke,  no  doubt,  of  the  force  from  above,  of  the  divine  aid 
necessary  to  sanctify  the  man,  but  not  of  a  new  birth  (see  Luthardt). 

The  words :  "when  he  is  old,"  prove  that  Nicodemus  did  not  fail  to  apply 
to  himself  the  :  "  If  any  one  "  of  Jesus.  The  word  devrepov,  a  second  time, 
undoubtedly  reproduces  only  partially  the  meaning  of  avudev,from  the  begin- 
ning, in  the  mouth  of  Jesus.  This  is  because  Nicodemus  does  not  compre- 
hend the  difference  between  a  beginning  anew  and  a  different  beginning. 
A  radical  moral  renewal  seems  to  him  impossible  without  a  simultaneous 
physical  renewal.  Thus  the  explanation  which  Jesus  gives  him  bears  on 
the  absolute  difference  between  the  natural  birth  and  the  new  birth  which 
He  demands : 


chap.  in.  4,  5.  379 

Ver.  5.  "Jesus  answered:  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee  that  except  a  man  is 
bom  of  water  and  of  spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God." l  The 
words,  of  water  and  spirit,  substituted  for  avudev  {from  the  beginning)  in- 
dicate to  Nicodemus  the  new  factors,  and  consequently  the  totally  different 
nature  of  this  second  birth.  The  first  term  :  of  water,  agrees  better  with 
the  idea  of  a  new  birth,  than  with  that  of  a  heavenly  birth.  Spiritualism, 
embarrassed  by  the  material  character  of  this  first  means,  has  often  sought 
to  unite  it  with  the  second.  Thus  Calvin  paraphrases  the  expression  of 
water  and  spirit  by  the  term  aquae  spiritales  ;  he  finds  support  in  the  expres- 
sion baptism  of  the  Spirit  and  of  fire  (Luke  iii.  10).  But  the  spiritual  sense 
of  the  wording  could  not  be  questioned  in  that  phrase.  It  was  otherwise 
with  the  word  water  in  the  saying  with  which  we  are  occupied,  especially 
at  the  time  when  Jesus  was  speaking  thus.  The  baptism  of  John  was  pro- 
ducing at  that  time  an  immense  sensation  in  Israel,  so  that  the  thought  of 
Nicodemus,  on  hearing  the  words,  birth  by  water,  must  have  turned  imme- 
diately to  that  ceremony ;  as  it  was  celebrated  in  the  form  of  a  total  or 
partial  immersion,  it  quite  naturally  represented  a  birth.  Jesus,  moreover, 
at  the  moment  when  He  thus  expressed  Himself,  was  in  a  sense  coming 
out  from  the  water  of  baptism  ;  it  was  when  completing  this  rite  that  He 
had  Himself  received  the  Holy  Spirit.  How,  in  such  circumstances,  could 
this  expression :  Born  of  water,  have  possibly  designated  on  His  lips  any- 
thing else  than  baptism?  Thus,  also,  is  explained  the  negative  and  almost 
menacing  form :  Except  a  man  .  .  .  Nicodemus  was  a  Pharisee,  and  we 
know  that  the  Pharisees  had  refused  to  submit  to  John's  baptism  (Luke 
vii.  30) ;  this  saying  contained,  therefore,  a  very  real  admonition  addressed 
to  Nicodemus.  Weiss,  laying  stress  upon  the  absence  of  the  article  before 
the  word  water,  rejects  this  special  allusion  to  the  rite  of  baptism.  He  sees 
in  the  water  only  an  image  of  the  purification  of  sin  effected  by  the  new 
spiritual  birth.  But  the  absence  of  the  article  simply  makes  prominent 
the  qiuility  of  the  means,  and  does  not  prevent  us  from  thinking  of  the 
special  practical  use  which  was  made  of  it  by  John  at  that  time.  Nico- 
demus must  learn  that  the  acceptance  of  the  work  of  the  forerunner  was 
the  first  condition  of  entering  into  the  new  life.  This  first  term,  therefore, 
contained  a  positive  invitation  to  break  with  the  line  of  conduct  adopted 
by  the  Pharisaic  party  towards  John  the  Baptist.  But  what  is  the  relation 
between  baptism  and  the  new  birth  (ver.  3)  ?  Liicke  makes  prominent  in 
baptism  the  subjective  element  of  repentance  (neravoia).  He  thinks  that 
Jesus  meant  to  say  :  First  of  all,  on  the  part  of  man,  repentance  (of  which 
baptism  is  the  emblem) ;  afterwards,  on  the  part  of  God,  the  Spirit.  But  ■ 
the  two  defining  words  are  parallel,  depending  on  one  and  the  same  prep- 
osition; the  one  cannot  represent  something  purely  subjective  and  the 
other  something  purely  objective.  The  water  also  contains  something 
objective,  divine;  this  divine  element  in  baptism  is  expressed  in  the  best 
way  by  Strauss.     "  If  baptism  is,  on  the  part  of  man,"  he  says,  "  the  declara- 

1  K  reads  iSeiv  Trjy  /WiAeiav  tu>k  ovpavtav  (the  kingdom  of  heaven),  a  reading  which  Teschen- 
dorf adopts  (8th  edition). 


380  FIRST   TART. 

tion  of  the  renunciation  of  sin,  it  is,  on  the  part  of  God,  the  declaration  of  the 
'pardon  of  sins."  The  baptism  of  water,  in  so  far  as  offered  and  adminis- 
tered on  the  part  of  God  and  in  His  name,  contains  the  promise  of  pardon, 
of  which  it  is  the  visible  pledge,  in  favor  of  the  sinner  who  accepts  it.  In 
this  sense,  Peter  says  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  Acts  ii.  38 :  "  Be  baptized, 
every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  for  the  pardon  of  sins;  and 
[following  upon  this  pardon]  you  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit." 
And  it  must,  indeed,  be  noticed  that  he  says  :  "  The  pardon  of  sins,"  and 
not  of  his  sins.  For  it  is  the  idea  of  baptism  in  itself,  and  not  that  of  its 
individual  efficacy,  which  Peter  wishes  to  indicate.  Baptism  is,  indeed,  the 
crowning-point  of  the  symbolic  lustrations  of  the  Old  Testament ;  comp. 
Ps.  Ii.,  4,  9,  "  Wash  me  from  mine  iniquity  .  .  .  Cleanse  me  from  my  sin  with 
hyssop  ;  wash  me  and  I  shall  be  whiter  than  snow."  Ezek.  xxxvi.  25,  "  I  will 
sprinkle  upon  you  clean  water,  and  you  shall  be  clean."  Zech.  xiii.  1,  "  In  that 
day  there  shall  be  a  fountain  opened  to  the  house  of  David  and  to  the  inhabitants 
of  Jerusalem  for  sin  and  for  uncleanness."  Water  is,  in  all  these  passages, 
the  emblem  of  the  expiatory  blood,  the  only  real  means  of  pardon.  Comp. 
1  John  v.  G,  where  the  water,  the  blood  and  the  Spirit  are  placed  in  con- 
nection with  one  another;  the  water,  on  the  one  hand,  as  the  symbol 
of  the  blood  which  reconciles  and,  on  the  other,  as  the  pledge  of  the  Spirit 
which  regenerates.  To  accept  the  baptism  of  water  administered  by  John 
was,  therefore,  while  bearing  witness  of  one's  repentance,  to  place  oneself 
under  the  benefit  of  the  promise  of  the  Messianic  pardon.  The  condem- 
nation being  thus  taken  away,  the  baptized  person  found  himself  restored 
before  God  to  his  normal  position,  that  of  a  man  who  had  not  sinned ;  and 
consequently  he  found  himself  fitted  to  receive  from  the  Messiah  Himself 
the  gift  of  the  Spirit.  The  Spirit :  Here  is  the  active,  efficient  principle  of 
the  new  birth,  of  the  renewal  of  the  will  and  of  the  dispositions  of  the  heart, 
and  thereby  even  of  the  whole  work  of  sanctification.  Jesus  sums  up, 
therefore,  in  these  two  words :  Of  water  and  spirit,  the  essential  principles 
of  the  Christian  salvation,  pardon  and  sanctification,  those  two  conditions 
of  entrance  into  the  divine  kingdom. 

In  the  following  verses,  no  further  mention  of  water  is  made,  precisely 
because  it  has  in  the  new  birth  only  a  negative  value ;  it  removes  the  ob- 
stacle, the  condemnation.  The  creative  force  proceeds  from  the  Spirit. 
The  absence  of  the  article  with  the  word  spirit,  is  explained  in  the  same 
way  as  with  the  word  water.  The  question  is  of  the  nature  or  quality  of 
the  factors  co-operating  in  this  supernatural  birth.  The  expression, 
slaeWelv  (to  enter),  is  substituted  here  for  the  term  ISelv  (to  see),  of  ver.  3. 
The  figure  of  entering  into,  is  in  more  direct  correspondence  with  that  of 
being  born.  It  is  by  coming  forth  from  (in)  the  two  elements  indicated,  in 
which  the  soul  is  plunged,  that  it  enters  into  (eig),  the  kingdom.  The  read- 
ing of  the  Sinaitic  MS. :  "  the  kingdom  of  heaven"  is  found  also,  accord- 
ing to  Hippolytus,  among  the  Docetse  of  the  second  century  ;  it  is  found 
in  a  recently  discovered  fragment  of  Irenseus,  in  the  Apostolical  Constitu- 
tions, and  in  Origen  (transl.).  These  authorities  are  undoubtedly  not  suf- 
ficient to  authorize  us  to  substitute  it  for  the  received  reading,  as  Tischen- 


chap.  in.  6.  381 

dorf  does.  But  this  variant  must  be  extremely  ancient.  At  all  events, 
it  overthrows  the  objection  raised  against  the  reality  of  the  quotation  of 
our  passage  in  Justin,  Apol.  i.  61.     (See  Introd.,  p.  152,  153.) 

In  speaking  thus  to  Nicodemus,  Jesus  did  not  think  of  making  salvation 
depend,  either  in  general  or  in  each  particular  case,  on  the  material  act 
of  baptism.  The  example  of  the  thief  on  the  cross  proves  that  pardon 
could  be  granted  without  the  baptism  of  water.  But,  when  the  offer  of 
this  sign  has  been  made  and  the  sinner  has  rejected  it,  the  position  is  dif- 
ferent ;  and  this  was  the  case  with  Nicodemus.  By  the  two  following  sen- 
tences, Jesus  demonstrates  the  necessity  (ver.  6a),  and  the  possibility  (ver. 
6b),  of  the  new  birth,  by  leaving  aside  the  water,  to  keep  closely  to  the 
Spirit  only. 

Ver.  6.  "  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,  and  that  which  is  born  of  the 
Spirit  is  spirit."  The  logical  transition  from  ver.  5  to  ver.  6  is  this  under- 
stood idea :  "  The  Kingdom  of  God  can  only  be  of  a  spiritual  nature,  as 
God  is  Himself."  In  order  to  enter  it,  therefore,  there  must  be,  not  flesh, 
as  every  man  is  by  his  first  birth,  but  spirit,  as  he  becomes  by  the  new 
birth.  The  word  flesh  (see  pp.  268-269),  taken  in  itself,  does  not  necessarily 
imply  the  notion  of  sin.  But  it  certainly  cannot  be  maintained,  with 
Weiss,  that  the  question  here  is  simply  of  the  insufficiency  of  the  natural 
birth,  even  in  the  state  of  innocence,  to  render  man  fit  for  the  divine 
kingdom.  Nevertheless,  we  must  not  forget  that  the  question  here  is  of 
humanity  in  its  present  constitution,  according  to  which  sin  is  connected 
with  the  fact  of  birth  more  closely  than  with  any  other  of  the  natural  life 
(Ps.  li.  7).1  The  expression :  the  flesh,  seems  to  me,  therefore,  to  denote 
here  humanity  in  its  present  state,  in  which  the  flesh  rules  the  spirit. 
This  state  is  transmitted  from  generation  to  generation  in  such  a  way 
that,  without  renewal,  no  man  can  come  out  of  that  fatal  circle.  And 
hence  the  necessity  of  regeneration.  How  does  this  transmission  of  the 
carnal  state  accord  with  individual  culpability?  The  last  words  of  this 
conversation  will  throw  some  light  on  this  difficult  question.  According 
to  this  saying,  it  is  impossible  to  suppose  that  Jesus  regarded  Himself  as 
born  in  the  same  way  as  other  men  (ver.  7,  you).  The  substantive  flesh,  as 
a  predicate  (is  flesh),  has  a  much  more  forcible  meaning  than  that  of  the 
adjective  (carnal)  would  be.  The  state  has,  in  some  sort,  become  nature. 
Hence,  it  follows  that  it  is  not  enough  to  cleanse  or  adorn  outwardly  the 
natural  man ;  a  new  nature  must  be  substituted  for  the  old,  by  means  of 
a  regenerating  power.  We  might  also  see  in  the  second  clause  a  proof  of 
the  necessity  of  the  new  birth  ;  it  would  be  necessary,  in  that  case,  to  give 
it  the  exclusive  sense :  "  Nothing  except  what  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spir- 

1  The  opposition  which  Weiss  makes  to  ap-  which  the  word  flesh  is  used,  there  are  thirty- 
pear  between  Paul  and  John  as  to  the  use  of  two  where  the  term  has  a  morally  indifferent 
the  word  flesh,  as  if  the  notion  of  sin  were  sense  ;  in  John  (Gospel  and  Epistle),  there  is, 
connected  more  closely  to  this  term  by  the  beyond  our  present  passage,  only  one  case 
first  than  by  the  second,  is  only  relatively  among  fifteen  (1  John  ii.  lfi),  where  the  notion 
well-founded.  This  is  what  the  difference  of  sin  seems  to  be  attached  to  the  word  flesh. 
amounts  to:  in  Paul,  of  eighty-eight  cases  in 


382  FIRST   PART. 

itual  (and  can  enjoy,  in  consequence,  the  Kingdom  of  the  Spirit)."  But 
the  clause  has  rather  a  positive  and  affirmative  sense :  "  That  which  is  born 
of  the  Spirit  is  really  spirit,  and  consequently  cannot  fail  to  enjoy  the  King- 
dom of  the  Spirit."  The  idea,  therefore,  is  that  of  the  reality  of  the  new 
birth,  and  consequently,  of  its  complete  possibility.  This  is  the  answer  to  the 
question  :  "  How  can  a  man  ?  "  Let  the  Spirit  breathe,  and  the  spiritual 
man  exists !  The  word  Spirit,  as  subject,  denotes  the  Divine  Spirit,  and, 
as  predicate,  the  new  man.  Here,  again,  the  substantive  (spirit),  is  used 
instead  of  the  adjective  (spiritual),  to  characterize  the  new  essence.  This 
word  spirit,  in  the  context  here,  includes  not  only  the  new  principle  of 
spiritual  life,  but  also  the  soul  and  body,  in  subjection  to  the  Spirit.  The 
neuter,  rb  yeyewquhov  (that  which  is  born),  is  substituted  in  the  two  clauses 
for  the  masculine  (he  who  is  bom),  for  the  purpose  of  designating  the 
nature  of  the  product,  abstractedly  from  the  individual ;  thus,  the  general- 
ity of  the  law  is  more  clearly  brought  out.  Hilgenfeld  finds  here  the 
Gnostic  distinction  between  two  kinds  of  men,  originally  opposite. 
Meyer  well  replies :  "  There  is  a  distinction,  not  between  two  classes  of 
men,  but  between  two  different  phases  in  the  life  of  the  same  individual." 

Jesus  observes,  that  the  astonishment  of  Nicodemus,  instead  of  dimin- 
ishing, goes  on  increasing.  He  penetrates  the  cause  of  this  fact :  Nicode- 
mus has  not  yet  given  a  place  in  his  conception  of  divine  things  to  the 
action  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  this  is  the  reason  why  he  is  always  seeking  to 
represent  to  himself  the  new  birth  as  a  fact  apprehensible  by  the  senses. 
Recognizing  him,  however,  as  a  serious  and  sincere  man,  He  wishes  to 
remove  from  his  path  this  stumbling-stone.  Here  is  not  a  fact,  He  says 
to  him,  which  one  can  picture  to  himself;  it  can  be  comprehended  only 
as  far  as  it  is  experienced. 

Vv.  7,  8.  "  Marvel  not  at  that  which  I  have  said  unto  thee :  ye  must  be  born 
anew.  The  wind  bloweth  where  it  listeth,  and  thou  hearest  the  sound  thereof, 
but  knowest  not  whence  it  cometh  nor l  whither  it  goeth.  So  is  every  one  that  is 
born  of  the  Spirit.2 — By  the  expression  :  "  Ye  must  be  born,"  Jesus  exempts 
Himself  from  this  general  condition.  It  was  necessary  for  Him  to  groiv 
spiritually,  no  doubt,  (Luke  ii.  40,  52) ;  but  He  did  not  need  to  be  born 
again.  The  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  at  His  baptism  was  not  a  regeneration, 
but  the  crowning  of  a  perfectly  normal  previous  development  under  the 
constant  influence  of  the  Spirit, — Jesus  directs  the  attention  of  Nicodemus 
to  a  fact  which,  like  the  new  birth,  escapes  the  observation  of  the  senses, 
and  which  is  proved  only  by  its  effects,  the  blowing  of  the  wind. — The 
Greek  word  nvevfia  has,  as  well  as  the  Hebrew  word  nn,  the  twofold  mean- 
ing of  wind  and  spirit.  As  it  appears  from  the  following  so  that  there  is  a 
comparison,  this  term  is  certainly  taken  here  in  the  sense  of  wind.  Tho- 
luck  (first  edition)  supposed  that,  at  that  very  moment,  the  wind  was  heard 
blowing  in  the  streets  of  Jerusalem.  This  supposition  gives  more  of  reality 
to  the  words :    and  thou  hearest  the  sound  thereof — When  he  says :  thou 

1  The  Mjj.  Mnn.  and  Vss.  read  koi  irou,  and  *X  alone  reads  «  rou  vfiafos  «ai  tov  wvtv 

not  ij  jtou  (A.  It.  Vg.)  fiaTos. 


chap.  in.  7-10.  383 

knowest  not  .  .  .  Jesus  does  not  speak  of  the  explanation  of  the  wind  in 
general.  He  calls  to  mind  only  that,  in  each  particular  case,  it  is  impos- 
sible to  determine  exactly  the  point  where  this  breath  is  formed  and  the 
one  where  it  ends.  Perhaps  there  is  an  allusion  to  Eccles.  xi.  5 :  "As 
thou  knowest  not  the  way  of  the  wind  ..."  While  the  development 
of  all  natural  life  connects  itself  with  an  organic  visible  germ  and  ends  in 
a  product  which  falls  under  the  senses,  the  wind  appears  and  subsides  as 
if  a  free  irruption  of  the  infinite  into  the  finite.  There  is,  therefore,  in 
nature  no  more  striking  example  of  the  action  of  the  Spirit.  The  opera- 
tion of  the  regenerating  principle  is  not  bound  to  any  rule  appreciable  by 
tbe  senses ;  it  is  perceived  only  by  its  action  on  the  human  soul.  But  the 
man  in  whom  this  action  works  does  not  understand  either  from  whence 
these  new  impressions  which  he  feels  proceed,  nor  whither  they  lead  him. 
He  is  only  conscious  of  a  profound  work  which  is  wrought  within  him  and 
which  radically  renews  him.  The  adverb  of  rest  tov,  with  the  verb  of 
motion  virayei,  is  a  frequent  construction  in  Greek.  It  is,  as  it  were,  the 
anticipation  of  the  state  of  rest  which  will  follow  the  motion  when  it  has 
reached  its  end.  The  application  of  the  comparison,  in  the  second  part  of 
the  verse,  is  not  expressed  altogether  correctly.  It  would  have  been 
necessary  to  say  :  so  it  takes  place  in  every  man  who  is  born  .  .  .  But  it  is 
not  in  the  genius  of  the  Greek  language  to  make  a  comparison  and  its 
application  correspond  symmetrically ;  comp.,  in  the  New  Testament,  Matt, 
xiii.  19  f.,  xxv.  1,  etc. — The  perfect  participle  yeyewr/fievog  denotes  the  com- 
pleted fact :  The  eye  has  seen  nothing,  the  ear  has  heard  nothing.  And 
yet  there  is  a  man  born  anew  and  one  who  has  entered  into  the  eternal 
kingdom?  All  is  done,  and  nothing  has  been  visible!  What  a  contrast 
with  the  noisy  and  pompous  appearance  of  the  divine  kingdom  according 
to  the  Pharisaic  programme ! 

Vv.  9,  10.  "  Nicodemus  answered  and  said  unto  him :  How  can  these  things 
be?  10.  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  him  :  Thou  art  the  teacher  of  Israel, 
and  thou  knowest  not  these  things!" — Nicodemus  does  not  deny;  but  he 
acknowledges  himself  a  stranger  to  all  experience  of  the  action  of  the 
Spirit.  It  is  Jesus'  turn  to  be  astonished.  He  discovers  with  surprise  such 
spiritual  ignorance  in  one  who,  at  this  moment,  represents  before  Him  the 
teaching  of  the  old  covenant.  Something  of  bitterness  has  been  found  in 
this  reply ;  it  expresses  nothing  but  legitimate  astonishment.  Ought  not 
such  passages  as  Jer.  xxxi.  33;  Ezek.  xxxvi.  26-28;  Ps.  cxliii.  10,  11,  to 
have  prepared  Nicodemus  to  understand  the  power  of  the  divine  breath? 
But  the  Pharisees  set  their  hearts  only  on  the  glory  of  the  kingdom,  rather 
than  on  its  holiness. — The  article  6  before  diSaanaXog,  "  the  teacher  "  has 
been  interpreted  in  the  sense:  "the  well-known,  illustrious  teacher" 
(Winer,  Keil.)  The  irony  would,  thus,  be  very  strong.  This  article, 
rather,  designates  Nicodemus  as  the  representative  of  the  Israelitish  teach- 
ing office,  as  the  official  dtdacaaXia  personified.  Comp.  the  6  tcdiuv  Mk. 
xiv.  18. 

The  tenth  verse  forms  the  transition  to  the  second  part  of  the  conversa- 
tion.   That  which  externally  marks  this  part  is  the  silence  of  Nicodemus. 


034  FIRST   PART. 

As  Hengsienberg  observes,  he  seems  to  say,  like  Job  before  Jebovah  :  "  I 
am  too  small;  what  shall  I  answer f  I  have  spoken  once;  but  I  put  my  hand 
upon  mymovih."  On  His  part,  Jesus  treats  him  with  a  touching  kindness  and 
condescension ;  He  has  found  him  humble  and  docile,  and  He  now  opens 
Himself  to  him  without  reserve.  Nicodemus  came,  as  we  have  seen,  to 
interrogate  Him  respecting  His  Messianic  mission  and  the  mode  of  the 
establishment  of  the  divine  kingdom  so  long  expected.  He  did  not  by  any 
means  preoccupy  his  thoughts  with  the  moral  conditions  on  which  he 
might  himself  enter  into  that  state  of  things.  A  faithful  Jew,  a  pious 
Pharisee,  a  holy  Sanhedrist,  he  believed  himself  saved  by  the  very  fact  that 
he  was  such.  Jesus,  as  a  consummate  educator,  began  by  reminding  him 
of  what  he  forgot, — the  practical  question.  He  taught  him  that  which  he 
did  not  ask  for,  but  that  which  it  was  more  important  for  him  to  know. 
And  now  He  reveals  to  him  kindly  all  that  which  he  desired  to  know  : 
He  declares  to  him  what  He  is  (vv.  11-13) ;  what  He  comes  to  do  (vv. 
14-17) ;  and  what  will  result  for  humanity  from  His  coming  (vv.  18-21). 

The  first  part  of  the  conversation  is  summed  up  thus  :  What  will  take 
place  ?  Answer :  Nothing,  in  the  sense  in  which  you  understand  it.  The 
second  means  :  And  yet  something  really  takes  place,  and  even  a  thing 
most  unheard  of:  The  supreme  revelator  is  present;  redemption  is  about 
to  be  accomplished  ;  the  universal  judgment  is  preparing.  Such  are  the 
divine  facts  which  are  displayed  before  the  eyes  of  Nicodemus  in  the  sec- 
ond part  of  the  conversation.  The  conduct  of  Jesus  with  this  man  is 
thus  in  complete  contrast  with  that  which  had  been  mentioned  in  ii.  24. 
He  trusts  Himself  to  him  ;  for  He  has  recognized  his  perfect  uprightness  ; 
comp.  ver.  21. 

The  positive  teaching  does  not,  properly,  begin  until  ver.  13.  Vv.  11, 
12,  are  prefatory  to  it. 

This  passage  vv.  11-13  is  clearly  joined  to  ver.  2;  Nicodemus  had 
spoken  in  the  name  of  several :  "  We  knoiv  ..."  (ver.  1) ;  Jesus  addresses  him- 
self to  these  absent  interlocutors :  "  You  receive  not  .  .  .  ;  if  I  told  you 
.  .  .  "(v.  lib  and  12a).  Nicodemus  had  called  Jesus  a  teacher  "come 
from  God  "  (ver.  1).  Jesus  shows  him  that  he  has  spoken  more  truly  than 
he  thought ;  He  reveals  Himself  to  him  as  the  Son  of  man,  descended 
from  heaven  to  bear  witness  of  heavenly  things  (ver.  13).  This  relation 
between  ver.  1  and  vv.  11-13  proves  that  the  whole  of  the  beginning  of 
the  conversation,  vv.  3-10,  was  called  forth  accidentally,  and  is  in  reality 
but  an  episode ;  and  that  now  only  do  the  revelations,  which  Nicodemus 
had  come  to  seek,  properly  speaking,  begin. 

Vv.  11-13.  In  opposition  to  the  doctorate  of  the  letter,  devoid  of  all 
spiritual  intuition,  Jesus  announces  to  him  the  coming  of  a  teaching, 
which  will  rest  on  the  immediate  knowledge  of  the  truth  (ver.  11).  In  order 
that  Nicodemus  may  profit  by  this  higher  teaching,  Jesus  invites  him  to 
faith  (ver.  12).  Finally  He  displays  to  him,  in  His  own  person,  the  perfect 
revealer  (ver.  13).  Weiss  and  Keil  think  that  Jesus  wishes  now  to  point 
out  the  way  to  attain  regeneration,  and,  consequently,  also  to  understand 
it.    But  the  setting  forth  of  salvation  given  in  the  sequel  is  far  too  coaaid- 


chap.  III.  11.  385 

erable  for  it  possibly  to  be  caused  by  so  special  a  relation  to  that  which 
precedes. 

Ver.  11.  "  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee,  We  speak  that  we  do  know  and  bear 
testimony  of  that  we  have  seen  ;  and  ye  receive  not  our  testimony."  The  for- 
mula amen,  amen  ("  in  truth  "),  declares,  as  always,  a  truth  which  Jesus  is 
about  to  draw  from  the  depths  of  His  consciousness,  and  which,  present- 
ing itself  as  a  revelation  to  the  mind  of  His  interlocutor,  must  triumph 
over  his  prejudices  or  his  doubts.  The  rabbinical  teaching  worked  upon 
the  letter  of  the  Scriptures,  but  did  not  place  itself  in  contact  with  the  es- 
sential truth  which  it  contained  (v.  39).  Jesus  proclaims  with  an  inward 
satisfaction  the  coming  of  a  wholly  different  teaching  of  holy  things, 
which  will  have  the  character  of  certainty :  "that  which  we  know;"  be- 
cause it  will  spring  from  immediate  intuition:  "  that  which  we  have  seen." 
The  two  subordinate  verbs,  we  speak,  and  we  testify,  are  in  correspondence 
with  the  two  principal  verbs  :  one  sprats  (declares)  that  which  one  knows  ; 
one  testifies  of  what  one  has  seen.  There  is,  moreover,  evident  progress  be- 
tween each  verb  and  the  corresponding  verb  of  the  following  clause : 
Knoidedge  rises  to  the  clearness  of  sight,  and  speaking  assumes  the  solemn 
character  of  testimony.  The  contrast  marked  here  by  Jesus  between  the 
rabbinical  teaching  and  His  own  struck  even  the  people  ;  comp.  Matt.  vii. 
28,  29. 

But  of  whom,  then,  does  Jesus  speak  when  He  says  "  We  "  f  What  is 
this  college  of  new  teachers  whom  He  contrasts  with  the  caste  of  the 
scribes  and  sages  of  this  age  which  passes  away  (1  Cor.  i.  20)  ?  These 
plurals  "  we  speak  .  .  .  we  testify  "  have  been  explained  in  a  variety  of  ways. 
Beza  and  Tholuck  understand  by  we:  "land  the  prophets."  Bengel:  "I 
and  the  Holy  Spirit."  Chrysostom  and  Euthymius  :  "  I  and  God."  The  im- 
possibility of  these  explanations  is  manifest.  Be  Wette  and  Liicke  see  in 
this  we  a  plural  of  majesty  ;  Meyer  and  Keil,  the  plural  of  category : 
"  teachers  such  as  I."  These  explanations  are  less  untenable.  But  this 
first  person  of  the  plural,  used  for  the  designation  of  Himself,  is  unex- 
ampled in  the  mouth  of  Jesus.  And  why  return  afterwards  to  the  singu- 
lar (vv.  12,  13)  :  "  I  tell  thee  ...  if  /  have  told  you  ...  if  J  tell  you." 
Just  as  the  you  is  addressed  to  other  persons  besides  Nicodemus  (comp. 
ver.  2 :  we  know),  so  the  we  must  be  applied  not  only  to  Jesus,  but  to  a 
plurality  of  individuals  which  He  opposes  to  that  of  which  Nicodemus 
is  the  representative.  We  must,  therefore,  suppose  that  Jesus  here  an- 
nounces to  Nicodemus  the  existence  of  a  certain  number  of  men  whoal 
ready  represent  the  new  mode  of  teaching.  According  to  Knapp,  Hof- 
mann,  Luthardt,  Weiss,  etc.,  Jesus,  when  speaking  thus,  thinks  only  of 
Himself  and  John  the  Baptist.  He  alludes  to  that  which  John  and  He  be- 
held in  the  scene  of  the  baptism.  But  the  idea  of  regeneration  to  which 
it  is  claimed  that  this  seeing  and  knowing  refer  is  totally  foreign  to  the 
scene  of  the  baptism,  and  even  in  our  chapter,  vv.  31,  32,  the  forerunner 
expressly  places  himself  outside  of  the  limits  of  the  new  teaching  inau- 
gurated by  Jesus.  We  believe,  therefore,  with  Lange,  Hengstenberg  and 
Westcott,  that  Jesus  is  thinking  of  Himself  and  His  disciples,  of  whom  one 
25 


386  FIRST   PART. 

or  several  were  at  that  moment  with  Him ;  and  who  were  beginning  al- 
ready to  become  the  organs  of  this  new  teaching-office  inaugurated  by 
Him.  In  the  person  of  Jesus,  then,  through  His  acts  and  His  words, 
heaven  is  constantly  opened  before  their  eyes  (i.  52)  ;  already  they  truly 
see  and  know  ;  their  gaze  pierces  to  the  essence  of  things  :  "  He  who  hath 
seen  me,  hath  seen  the  Father."  On  this  foundation,  they  already  testify. 
What  vivacity,  what  freshness,  in  the  declaration  of  John  and  Andrew,  i. 
42,  in  that  of  Philip,  i.  47,  in  the  exclamation  of  Nathanael,  i.  50,  in  the 
profession  of  Peter,  vi.  08,  09  !  There  are  here,  no  doubt  in  a  weak  meas- 
ure, sight  and  testimony.  Jesus  feels  Himself  no  more  alone.  Hence 
the  feeling  of  profound  joy  which  breathes  in  these  plurals:  we  speak,  we 
know,  etc.,  and  which  betrays  itself  even  in  the  form  of  His  language.  In- 
deed, Luthardt  has  observed,  with  reason,  that  we  see  appearing  here  that 
form  of  parallelism  which  constitutes  the  poetic  rhythm  of  the  Hebrew 
language.  This  feature  of  style  betrays  emotion  and  always  marks  a  mo- 
ment of  peculiar  exaltation  (v.  37 ;  vi.  35,  55,  50 ;  xii.  44,  45).  The  lan- 
guage resembles  chant.  Nicodemus  must  learn  that  things  are  more  ad- 
vanced than  he  thinks !  This  passage  recalls  the  one  in  the  Synoptics 
where  Jesus  declares  the  preference  which  God  gives  to  little  children,  to 
His  humble  and  ignorant  disciples,  over  the  intelligent  and  learned  rabbis 
of  Jerusalem  (Matt.  xi.  25  ;  Luke  xi.  21).  While  his  colleagues  and  him- 
self are  still  waiting  for  the  solemn  hour  of.  the  advent  of  the  kingdom, 
that  kingdom  is  already  present  without  their  knowledge,  and  others  par- 
ticipate in  it  before  them !  Meyer,  Astie  and  others  refer  the  expression 
"  we  have  seen"  to  the  knowledge  possessed  by  Christ  in  His  pre-existent 
state.  But  Weiss  himself  rejects  here  this  explanation  which  he  thinks 
himself  obliged  to  adopt  in  other  analogous  cases  (see  on  ver.  13).  It 
would  be  altogether  incompatible  with  the  interpretation  which  we  have 
given  to  the  word  we. 

Before  unfolding  to  Nicodemus  what  He  knows  and  what  He  sees  of 
the  things  above,  Jesus  sadly  reverts  to  the  manner  in  which  His  testi- 
mony has  been  received  by  the  leaders  of  the  theocracy :  " And  ye  receive 
notour  testimony."  Kai,  and,  has  the  meaning  here  of  and  yet  (i.  10).  This 
copula  brings  out  better  than  would  the  particle  Kairoi,  yet  (which  John 
never  uses),  the  contradiction  between  two  facts  which  should  be  ex- 
clusive of  each  other  and  which  nevertheless  move  on  together  (hearing 
and  rejecting  the  testimony).  ,  Jesus  was  conscious,  as  every  living 
preacher  is,  of  the  inward  resistance  which  His  appearance  and  His  teach- 
ing met  in  the  hearts  of  the  people  and  their  rulers.  A  presentiment  of 
this  might  have  been  had  already  at  the  time  of  the  deputation  of  the 
Sanhedrim  to  John  (i.  19  ff.).  The  conduct  of  the  people  and  the  author- 
ities, with  regard  to  the  solemn  procedure  of  Jesus  in  the  temple  (ii.  12  ff.), 
had  given  Him  the  measure  of  that  which  awaited  Him.  The  words  of 
Nicodemus  himself  (iii.  2),  in  which  he  had  called  Him  teacher  in  consid- 
eration of  His  miracles,  not  of  His  teaching  itself  (ver.  2),  showed  how 
little  His  word  had  found  access  to  hearts.  The  want  of  spiritual  recep- 
tivity, which  the  misunderstanding  of  Nicodemus  had  just  betrayed,  will, 


chap.  in.  12.  387 

as  Jesus  perceives,  render  very  difficult  the  acceptance  of  the  heavenly 
revelations  which  he  brings  to  the  world : 

Ver.  12.  "  If  I  have  told  you  earthly  things  and  ye  believe1  not,  how  shall 
ye  believe  if  I  tell  you'2  of  heavenly  things?"  When  a  teacher  says  to 
his  pupil :  "  If  you  do  not  understand  me  on  this  point,  how  -will 
you  understand  me  on  that  ? "  we  must  suppose  that  the  disciple 
expects  to  be  instructed  respecting  this  latter  point.  We  must,  there- 
fore, conclude  from  this  word  of  Jesus,  that  the  heavenly  things  are  to 
Jesus'  view  those  which  preoccupy  Nicodemus,  and  with  reference  to 
which  he  had  come  to  interrogate  Him :  the  person  of  the  Messiah,  the 
nature  of  His  kingdom,  the  way  in  which  He  will  lay  the  foundation  of, 
and  complete  this  great  work,  both  in  Israel  and  in  the  Gentile  world. 
And,  indeed,  these  are  precisely  the  questions  which  Jesus  answers  in  the 
second  part  of  the  conversation,  which  is  to  follow.  The  contrast  between 
the  past,  "  if  I  have  told  you  "  and  the  present  "if  I  tell  you  "  proves  that 
Jesus  had  not  yet  set  forth  publicly  what  He  calls  the  heavenly  things. 
This  conversation  was  the  first  communication  of  Jesus  concerning  the 
nature  of  the  Messianic  kingdom  and  the  mode  of  salvation,  outside  of 
the  innermost  circle  of  His  own  friends.  The  public  teaching  of  Jesus 
had,  therefore,  up  to  that  time  related  to  what  He  calls  the  earthly  things. 
This  expression  cannot  denote  things  which  appertain  to  earthly  inter- 
ests :  for  Jesus  did  not  occupy  Himself  with  these  things  before  this,  any 
more  than  He  did  afterwards.  If  by  the  heavenly  things  Ave  must  of 
course  understand  the  designs  of  God,  inaccessible  to  the  human  mind, 
for  the  establishment  of  His  kingdom,  we  must  include  in  the  domain  of 
earthly  things  all  that  which  appertains  to  the  moral  nature  of  man  ;  out- 
side of  the  region  of  redemption  and  regeneration  ;  thus,  everything  which 
Jesus  comes  to  declare  respecting  the  carnal  state  of  the  natural  man  and 
the  necessity  of  a  radical  transformation.  Jesus  is  thinking,  no  doubt,  of 
the  contents  of  His  first  preachings,  analogous  to  those  of  John  the  Bap- 
tist, and  which  Mark  sums  up  (i.  15)  in  these  words  :  "  Repent  ye,  and  be- 
lieve the  Gospel :  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand;"  those  preachings 
of  which  we  possess  the  most  remarkable  example  in  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount.  What  a  difference  as  compared  with  the  revelations  which  Jesus 
makes  to  Nicodemus !  The  conversation  with  him  is  the  first  step  in  a 
region  infinitely  elevated  above  that  elementary  preaching.  We  under- 
stand now  why  it  has  been  preserved  to  us  by  John ;  it  had  been  of 
marked  importance  in  the  development  of  his  own  faith. 

According  to  Liicke  and  Rems  the  earthly  things  are  the  things  easy  to 
be  understood,  and  the  heavenly  "  the  most  elevated  ideas  of  the  Gospel, 
less  accessible  to  an  intelligence  which  Avas  not  yet  enlightened  by  it." 
This  sense  is  true  from  the  standpoint  of  consequences,  but  not  from  that 
of  explanation  strictly  so-called.  There  is  no  example  to  prove  that 
heavenly  can  signify  difficult,  and  earthly,  easy.    Ewald  makes  of  e'nrov  a 

1  E  H10  Mnn. :  ovk  eirio-reucraTe  (ye  did  not  be-  *  The  second  vij.iv  is  wanting  in  E  II  9  Mnn. 

Ueve),  instead  of  ov  irtorevtTe  (yedo  not  believe).        It^H. 


388  FIRST  PART. 

third  person  plural :  "  If  they  (the  prophets)  have  spoken  to  you  of  earthly 
things  and  you  have  not  believed  (the  reading :  eiua-evoaTt:)."  But  a  subject 
of  this  sort  could  not  be  understood,  and  an  kyu  could  not  be  omitted  in 
the  following  clause  {Meyer,  Bdumlein).  In  this  remarkable  saying,  Jesus 
contrasts  the  facts  which  pertain  to  the  domain  of  the  human  conscious- 
ness, and  which  man  can  verify  by  observation  of  himself,  with  the  divine 
decrees  which  cannot  be  known  except  by  means  of  a  revelation.  This  is 
the  reasoning :  "  If,  when  I  have  declared  to  you  the  things  whose  reality 
you  can,  by  consulting  your  own  consciousness,  discover,  you  have  not 
believed,  how  will  you  believe  when  I  shall  reveal  to  you  the  secrets  of 
heaven,  which  must  be  received  solely  on  the  foundation  of  a  word?" 
There,  the  testimony  of  the  inner  sense  facilitates  faith ;  here,  on  the  con- 
trary, everything  rests  upon  confidence  in  the  testimony  of  the  revealer. 
This  testimony  being  rejected,  the  ladder,  on  which  man  may  raise  him- 
self to  the  knowledge  of  heavenly  things,  is  broken,  and  the  access  to  the 
divine  secrets  remain, closed. 

This  saying  of  Jesus  should  teach  apologetics  to  place  the  supporting 
point  of  faith  in  the  declarations  of  the  Gospel  which  are  most  immedi- 
ately connected  with  the  facts  of  consciousness  and  the  moral  needs  of 
the  soul.  Its  truth  being  once  recognized  in  this  domain  where  it  can  be 
verified  by  every  one,  it  is  already  half-demonstrated  in  relation  to  those 
declarations  which  are  connected  with  the  purely  divine  domain.  It  will  be 
completely  so,  as  soon  as  it  shall  be  established  that  these  two  parts,  divine 
and  human,  of  the  Gospel,  are  adapted  to  one  another  as  the  two  parts  of 
one  whole ;  that  the  moral  needs  of  man  which  are  proved  by  the  one  find 
their  full  satisfaction  in  the  divine  plans  revealed  in  the  other.  The  moral 
truth  of  the  Gospel  is  the  first  guarantee  of  its  religious  truth. 

Ver.  13.  "And  no  one  hath  ascended  up  to  heaven  except  he  who  descended 
from  heaven,  the  Son  of  man  who  is  in  heaven." 1  The  question,  "  how  ivill 
you  believe  f  "  (ver.  12)  implied,  in  the  thought  of  Him  who  proposed  it, 
the  necessity  of  faith.  Ver.  13  justifies  this  necessity.  The  intermediate 
idea  is  the  following :  "  Indeed,  without  faith  in  my  testimony,  there  is 
no  access  for  you  to  those  heavenly  things  which  thou  desirest  to  know." 
Kai :  and  yet.  Olshausen,  de  Wette,  Liicke,  Luthardt  and  Meyer  find  in  ver. 
13  the  proof,  not  of  the  necessity  of  faith  in  the  revelation  contained  in 
the  teaching  of  Jesus,  but  of  that  in  revelation  in  general.  But  this  thesis 
is  too.  purely  theoretical  to  find  a  place  in  such  a  conversation.  Heng- 
stenberg  thinks  that  Jesus  here  wishes  to  reveal  His  divinity  as  the  first 
among  the  heavenly  things  which  Nicodemus  has  need  to  know.  Meyer 
rightly  answers  that  the  negative  form  of  the  proposition  is  inconsistent 
with  this  intention.  Besides,  Jesus  would  have  employed,  in  that  case, 
the  expression  Son  of  God,  rather  than  Son  of  man.  The  general  mean- 
ing of  this  saying  is  as  follows  :  "  You  do  not  believe  my  word  .  .  .  And 
yet  no  one  has  ascended  to  heaven  so  as  to  behold  the  heavenly  things 
and  make  them  known  to  you,  except  He  who  has  descended  from  it  to 

» K  B  L  Tb  Orig.  (once)  Euseb.  omit  the  words  o  mv  tv  tw  ovpavu  (who  is  in  heaven). 


chap.  in.  13.  389 

live  with  you  as  a  man,  and  who,  even  while  living  here  below,  abides 
there  also  ;  so  that  He  alone  knows  them  de  visu,  and  so  that,  conse- 
quently, to  believe  in  His  teaching  is  for  you  the  only  means  of  knowing 
them."  But  how  can  Jesus  say  of  Himself  that  He  ascended  to  heaven? 
Did  He  speak  of  His  ascension  hy  way  of  anticipation  {Augustine, 
Calvin,  Bengel,  Hengstenberg)  ?  But  His  future  ascension  would  not  justify 
the  necessity  of  faith  in  His  earthly  teaching.  Lilcke,  Olshausen,  Bey- 
schlag,  after  the  example  of  Erasmus,  Beza,  etc.,  think  that  heaven  is 
here  only  the  symbol  of  perfect  communion  with  God — a  communion  to 
which  Jesus  had  morally  risen,  and  by  virtue  of  which  He  alone  possessed 
the  adequate  knowledge  of  God  and  of  the  things  above.  This  sense  would 
be  admissible  if  the  word  ascended  had  not  as  its  antithesis  the  term 
descended,  which  refers  to  a  positive  fact,  that  of  the  incarnation ;  the 
corresponding  term  ascend  must,  therefore,  refer  to  a  fact  no  less  positive, 
or  rather — since  the  verb  is  in  the  perfect  and  not  the  aorist — to  a  state 
resulting  from  a  fact  quite  as  positive.  Meyer  and  Weiss,  following  Jansen, 
think  that  the  idea  of  ascending  may  be  regarded  as  applying  only  to  men 
in  general  and  that  an  abstraction  from  it  can  be  made  with  reference  to 
Jesus.  Ascending  is  here  only  as  if  the  indispensable  condition  for  all  other 
men,  of  dwelling  in  heaven  :  "  No  one  .  .  .  except  he  who  (without  having 
ascended  thither)  has  descended  from  it,  he  who  is  there  essentially  (Meyer), 
or  who  was  there  previously  (Weiss)."  This  is  an  attempt  to  escape  the 
difficulty  of  the  el  fiij,  except  ;  the  fact  of  being  in  heaven  is  reserved  for 
Jesus,  while  suppressing,  so  far  as  He  is  concerned,  that  of  ascending ; 
comp.  the  use  of  el  m  in  Matt.  xii.  4 ;  Luke  iv.  26,  27 ;  Gal.  i.  19.  How- 
ever, the  case  is  not  altogether  the  same  in  those  passages.  We  might 
try  to  take  the  el  \iij  in  the  sense  of  but,  like  the  Hebrew  ki  im;  but  in  that 
case  John  must  have  written  /care/??  instead  of  6  Kara^dq :  "  No  one  has 
ascended,  but  the  Son  of  man  descended."  The  Socinians,  perfectly  under- 
standing the  difficulty,  have  had  recourse  to  the  hypothesis  of  a  carrying 
away  of  Jesus  to  heaven,  which  was  granted  to  Him  at  some  time  or  other 
of  His  life  before  His  public  ministry.  As  for  ourselves,  we  have  no  occa- 
sion to  have  recourse  to  such  an  hypothesis ;  we  know  a  positive  fact 
which  is  sufficient  to  explain  the  has  ascended  when  we  apply  it  to  Jesus 
Himself;  it  is  that  which  occurred  at  His  baptism.  Heaven  was  then 
opened  to  Him ;  He  penetrated  it  deeply  by  His  gaze;  He  read  the  heart 
of  God,  and  knew  at  that  moment  everything  which  He  was  to  reveal  to 
men  of  the  divine  plan,  the  heavenly  things.  In  proportion  as  the  con- 
sciousness of  His  eternal  relation  as  Son  to  the  Father  was  given  to  Him, 
there  necessarily  resulted  from  it  the  knowledge  of  the  love  of  God 
towards  mankind.  Comp.  Matt.  xi.  27. — Heaven  is  a  state,  before  being  a 
place.  As  Gess  says  :  "  To  be  in  the  Father  is  to  be  in  heaven."  Subsid- 
iarily, no  doubt,  the  word  heaven,  takes  also  a  local  sense  ;  for  this  spirit- 
ual state  of  things  is  realized  most  perfectly  in  whatever  sphere  of  the 
universe  is  resplendent  with  all  the  glory  of  the  manifestation  of  God. 
The  moral  sense  of  the  word  heaven  prevails  in  the  first  and  third  clauses; 
the  local  sense  must  be  added  to  it  in  the  second.    "  No  one  has  ascended 


390  FIRST  PART. 

..."  signifies  thus  :  "  No  one  has  entered  into  communion  with  God  and 
possesses  thereby  an  intuitive  knowledge  of  divine  things,  in  order  to 
reveal  them  to  others,  except  He  to  whom  heaven  was  opened  and  who 
dwells  there  at  this  very  moment." 

And  by  virtue  of  what  was  Jesus,  and  Jesus  alone,  admitted  to  such  a 
privilege'  Because  heaven  is  His  original  home.  He  alone  has  ascended 
thither,  because  He  only  descended  thence.  The  term  descended  im- 
plies in  His  case  the  consciousness  of  having  personally  lived  in  heaven 
(Gess).  This  word  denotes,  therefore,  more  than  a  divine  mission;  it 
implies  the  abasement  of  the  incarnation,  and  consequently  involves  the 
notion  of  pre-existence.  It  is  an  evident  advance  upon  Nicodemus'  pro- 
fession of  faith  (ver.  2).  The  filial  intimacy  to  which  Jesus  is  exalted 
rests  on  His  essential  Sonship,  previous  to  His  earthly  life.  If  the  word 
descended  implies  pre-existence,  the  term,  Son  of  man,  brings  out  the 
human  side  in  this  heavenly  revealer.  The  love  of  mankind  impelled 
Him  to  become  one  of  us,  in  order  that  He  might  speak  to  us  as  a  man, 
and  might  instruct  us  in  heavenly  things  in  a  manner  intelligible  to  us. 
The  recollection  of  Prov.  xxx.  4  seems  not  to  be  foreign  to  the  expression 
which  Jesus  makes  use  of:  "  Do  I  know  the  knowledge  of  the  holy  ones? 
Who  ascend cth  to  heaven  and  descendeth  from  it?" — The  last  words: 
who  is  in  Iieaven  are  preserved  in  the  text  by  Teschendorf  (8th  ed.)  and  by 
Meyer,  notwithstanding  the  Alexandrian  authorities;  Westcott  rightly 
says:  "They  have  against  them  the  ancient  MSS.,  and  for  them  the 
ancient  versions."  But  according  to  this  critic,  the  testimony  of  the  ver- 
sions is  in  this  case  remarkably  weakened  by  the  contrary  testimony  of 
the  Sinaitic  MS.  which  so  often  accords  with  them.  The  rejection  may 
have  been  the  result  of  an  accidental  omission  or  of  the  difficulty  of 
reconciling  this  addition  with  the  idea  of  the  preceding  clause  ; — that  of 
having  descended.  On  the  other  hand,  we  can  understand  how  these  words 
may  have  been  interpolated,  in  order  to  resolve  the  apparent  contradiction 
between  the  idea  of  being  in  heaven  in  order  to  have  ascended  thither,  and 
that  of  having  descended.  At  all  events,  the  idea  which  these  words  express, 
that  of  the  actual  presence  of  Christ  in  heaven,  is  already  very  positively 
contained  in  the  perfect  ava^k^Ktv ,  has  ascended.  This  tense  indeed  docs 
not  signify :  has  accomplished  at  a  given  moment  the  act  of  ascending 
(this  would  be  the  sense  of  the  aorist),  but  He  is  there,  He  lives  there,  as 
having  ascended  thither.  Thus  the  preceding  antithesis  is  resolved. 
Jesus  lives  in  heaven,  as  a  being  who  has  re-ascended  thither  after  having 
descended  in  order  to  become  Son  of  man  (xvi.  28).  The  Lord  led  two 
lives  parallel  to  each  other,  an  earthly  life  and  a  heavenly  life.  He  lived 
in  His  Father,  and,  while  living  thus  with  the  Father,  He  gave  Himself 
unceasingly  to  men  in  His  human  life.  The  teaching  in  parables,  in  which 
the  heavenly  things  take  on  His  lips  an  earthly  dress,  is  the  true  lan- 
guage answering  to  that  existence  which  is  formed  of  two  simultaneous 
lives,  the  one  penetrating  the  other. 

Some  interpreters  (Luthardt,  Weiss),  understand  the  participle  (6  in>),  in 
the  sense  of  the  imperfect  who  was  (before  the  incarnation) ;  this  word,  ac- 


chap.  in.  14.  391 

cording  to  them,  expresses  the  idea  of  pre-existence  as  a  condition  of  the 
KarajlaivEiv,  of  the  act  of  descending.  But  this  participle  (6  uv),  if  it  is 
authentic,  is  rather  in  relation  with  the  principal  verb  :  has  ascended,  than 
with  the  participle  (6  Karafidc).  "  He  lives  in  heaven,  having  re-ascended 
thither,  inasmuch  as  He  has  descended  thence."  To  express,  Avithout  am- 
biguity, the  idea  of  the  imperfect,  the  periphrasis  (bg  ?}v)  would  have  been 
necessary;  Liicke  sees  in  o  uv  a  perpetual  present.  This  idea  may  be  ap- 
plied to  i.  18,  where  the  question  is  of  the  Son  of  God,  but  not  to  our  pas- 
sage, where  the  subject  is  the  Son  of  man. 

Meyer,  Weiss  and  Keil  maintain  that  Jesus  explains  here  the  knowledge 
which  He  has  of  divine  things  by  His  pre-existence.  Such  an  idea;ean 
be  found  in  these  words  only  on  condition  of  denying  any  application  of 
the  idea  of  ascending  to  Jesus,  a  thing  which  is  impossible.  The  higher 
knowledge  of  Jesus  is,  much  rather,  presented  here  as  the  result  of  an 
initiation  (has  ascended),  which  took  place  for  Him  during  the  course  of 
His  human  existence,  and  through  which  He  received  at  a  certain  time 
the  immediate  and  constant,  though  truly  human,  intuition  of  divine 
things.  And,  in  fact,  this  is  the  impression  which  every  word  of  Jesus 
produces :  that  of  a  man  who  perceives  the  divine  directly,  but  who  per- 
ceives it  with  a  human  consciousness  like  our  own.  It  is  impossible  for 
me  to  understand  how  Weiss  can,  on  the  one  hand,  make  this  higher 
knowledge  proceed  from  a  recollection  of  His  anterior  existence,  and 
maintain,  on  the  other,  that  such  knowledge  "docs  not  go  beyond  the 
limits  of  a  truly  human  consciousness."  The  Son  of  man,  living  in 
heaven,  so  as  to  have  re-ascended  thither  after  having  descended,  is  the 
sole  revealer  of  divine  things  :  this  is  the  first  of  the  inovpdvia,  the  heavenly 
secrets,  which  Jesus  communicates  to  Nicodemus.  The  second  is  the 
salvation  of  men  through  the  lifting  up  of  this  same  Son  of  man, 
not  on  a  throne,  but  on  a  cross,  the  supreme  wonder  of  divine  love  to  the 
world :  vv.  14-16.  This  is  the  essential  contents  of  the  revelation  which 
Jesus  announced  to  him  in  ver.  13. 

Vv.  14,  15.  "And  as  Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilderness,  so  must 
tlie  Son  of  man  be  lifted  up,  15,  that  whosoever  believeth  on  him,1  may  have 
eternal  life.''1  The  commentators  give  more  or  less  forced  explanations  of 
Kai  (and).  Liickc  :  "  I  can  reveal  (vv.  11-13),  and  I  must  do  so  "  (vv.  14-16). 
Olshausen  :  "  I  give  not  only  my  ivord,  but  my  person."  De  Wette :  "  Jesus 
passes  from  the  theoretical  to  the  practical."  Meyer  and  Luthardt :  "He 
has  spoken  of  the  necessity  of  faith ;  He  speaks  now  of  its  secretness." 
Weiss:  "There  is  here  a  new  motive  to  believe.  The  elevation  of  Jesus 
will  give  salvation  only  by  means  of  faith."  All  this  is  too  artificial. 
From  our  point  of  view,  the  connection  is  more  simple:  the  mi  and,  and 
also,  adds  a  second  divine  mystery  to  the  first,  the  decree  of  redemption  to 
that  of  revelation. 

The  central  idea  of  this  verse  is  that  of  the  lifting  up  of  the  Messiah. 

1  Instead  of  eic  avrov,  whioh  T.  R.  roads  in  A,  err'  avrto  in  T>.  ev  avroj  in  n  Tb.  N  B  h  Tb: 
with  14  Mij.  (amon«  them  K),  nearly  nil  the  som^  Mnn.;  Syr"". ;  It"1'?.,  omit  the  words 
Mnn.:  ItP,ur.  ;Vg;  Chrys. ;   en-'  auToi- is  read        m  a.7roA>)TaL  aAA". 


392  FIRST  PART. 

Three  principal  explanations  have  been  given  of  the  word  v-ipwdijvcu  {to  be 
lifted  up).  It  has  been  applied  either  to  the  spiritual  glory  which  the  moral 
perfection  which  He  will  display  in  His  sufferings  will  procure  for  Jesus 
in  the  hearts  of  men  (Paulus),  or  to  His  elevation  to  heavenly  glory  which 
will  take  place  as  following  upon  His  death  {Bleek),  or  finally,  to  the  very 
fact  of  His  suspension  on  the  cross ;  this  last  interpretation  is  the  one 
most  generally  received.  And  indeed,  in  the  one  or  the  other  of  the  first 
meanings,  Jesus  would  rather  have  used  the  term  do^aaOijvai  {to  be  glorified). 
For  the  third,  the  following  points  decide  the  case :  1.  The  comparison 
with  the  serpent  raised  to  the  top  of  the  pole,  which  certainly  had  nothing 
glorious  in  it;  2.  The  naturally  material  sense  of  the  word  vipudijvai  {to  be 
lifted  tip) ;  finally,  3.  The  relation  of  this  word  to  the  corresponding  Ara- 
maic term .  zekaph,  which  Nis  applied  to  the  suspension  of  malefactors. 
Only  we  must  take  account  of  the  allusion  which  Jesus,  in  using  this  term 
{being  lifted  up),  certainly  made  to  the  ideas  of  Nicodemus,  according  to 
which  the  Messiah  was  to  ascend  the  throne  of  Solomon  and  rule  the 
world.  And  the  voluntary  and  ironical  amphibology  of  this  expression 
will  be  understood  as  in  connection  with  the  Messianic  expectation  of  the 
Pharisees.  To  perceive  this  shade,  we  must  strongly  emphasize  the  ov-os : 
{it  is  thus) — and  not  as  you  picture  it  to  yourselves — that  the  lifting  up  of 
the  Son  of  man  will  take  place.  This  word  {will  be  lifted  up),  intimates 
indeed  that  by  this  strange  elevation  the  Son  of  man  will  attain  not  only  to 
the  throne  of  David,  but  to  that  of  God.  Such  is  the  full  meaning  of  the 
word :  to  be  lifted  up.  We  must  not,  as  Meyer  does,  refuse  to  follow  the 
thought  of  Jesus  in  this  rapid  evolution,  which  instantaneously  brings 
together  the  greatest  contrasts,  if  we  would  understand  all  the  depth  and 
all  the  richness  of  His  words.  We  find  here  again  the  same  enigmatical 
character  as  in  ii.  19.  The  fact  related  in  Num.  xxi.  9,  is  one  of  the  most 
astonishing  in  sacred  history.  Three  peculiarities  distinguish  this  mode 
of  deliverance  from  all  the  other  analogous  miracles:  1.  It  is  the  plague 
itself,  which,  represented  as  overcome,  becomes,  by  its  ignominious  expos- 
ure, the  means  of  its  own  defeat ;  2.  This  exposure  takes  place,  not  in  a 
real  serpent — the  suspension  in  that  case  would  have  proclaimed  only  the 
defeat  of  the  individual  exposed — but  in  a  typical  copy,  which  represents 
the  entire  species;  3.  This  expedient  becomes  efficacious  through  the  in- 
tervention of  a  moral  act,  the  look  of  faith  on  the  part  of  each  injured  per- 
son. If  this  is  the  type  of  salvation,  it  follows  from  this  fact  that  this  salva- 
tion will  be  wrought  in  the  following  way  :  1.  Sin  will  be  exposed  publicly 
as  vanquished,  and  for  the  future  poAverless;  2.  It  will  not  be  in  the  person 
of  a  real  sinner — which  would  proclaim  only  the  particular  defeat  of  that 
sinner — but  in  the  person  of  a  holy  man,  capable  of  representing,  as  a  liv- 
ing image,  the  condemnation  and  defeat  of  sin,  as  such  ;  3.  This  exhibition 
of  sin  as  one  who  is  vanquished,  will  save  each  sinner  only  by  means  of 
an  act  on  his  part,  the  look  of  faith  upon  his  spiritual  enemy  condemned 
and  vanquished.  Here,  Jesus  declares,  is  the  salvation  on  which  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  Kingdom  will  be  founded  ;  here  is  the  second  heavenly 
decree  revealed  to  men.    What  a  reversal  of  the  Messianic  programme  of 


chap.  in.  15.  393 

Nicodemus !  But,  at  the  same  time,  what  appropriateness  in  the  choice 
of  this  Scriptural  type,  designed  to  rectify  the  ideas  of  the  old  doctor  in 
Israel ! 

"  Must,"  says  Jesus ;  and  first,  for  the  fulfillment  of  the  prophecies ;  then, 
for  that  of  the  divine  decree,  of  which  the  prophecies  were  only  an  emana- 
tion (Hevgstenberg) ;  let  us  add,  finally ;  and  for  the  satisfaction  of  certain 
moral  necessities,  known  to  God  only.  The  designation,  Son  of  man,  is 
here,  as  at  ver.  13,  chosen  with  a  marked  design.  It  is  on  the  complete 
homogeneousness  of  His  nature  with  ours,  that  the  mysterious  substitu- 
tion rests,  which  is  proclaimed  in  this  verse,  precisely  as  it  was  on  this 
same  community  of  nature  that  the  act  of  revelation  rested,  which  was 
announced  in  the  preceding  verse. 

Ver.  15  finishes  the  application  of  the  type.  To  the  look  of  the  dying 
Israelite  the  faith  of  the  sinner  in  the  crucified  one  corresponds ;  to  the 
life  restored  to  the  wounded  one,  the  salvation  granted  to  the  believer. — 
Tide,  whosoever  extends  to  the  whole  of  humanity  the  application  of  the 
Israelitish  type,  while  emphatically  individualizing  the  act  of  faith  (6). — 
The  reading  of  the  T.  R.  elc  avrdv,  to  or  on  Him,  is  the  one  which  best  suits 
the  context  (the  look  turned  towards  .  .  .  ) ;  faith  looks  to  its  object.  If 
we  consider  how  little  the  Alexandrian  authorities  agree  among  them- 
selves, the  received  reading  will  be  acknowledged  as,  on  the  whole,  the  best 
supported  one.  Tischendorf  (Sth  ed.)  reads  h  a'vru,  after  the  Vatican 
MS. ;  in  that  case,  this  limiting  phrase  may  be  connected  with  exv,  as 
Weiss  and  Keil  connect  it,  rather  than  with  nurrevuv.  But,  in  this  context, 
the  connection  with  izia-evuv  remains,  nevertheless,  the  most  natural  rela- 
tion. The  Alexandrian  authorities  reject  the  words  fit)  anolrjTai  alia 
should  not  perish,  but ;  they  may  certainly  have  been  introduced  here  from 
ver.  16.  Even  in  that  case  we  are  struck  with  the  rhythmic  relation 
between  the  last  words  of  these  two  verses  ;  it  is  the  sign  of  the  stirring '  of 
feeling  and  elevation  of  thought  (Introd.,  p.  137).  We  comprehend,  in- 
deed, what  an  impression  this  first  revelation  of  His  future  suffering  of 
punishment  must  have  produced  on  Jesus  Himself;  comp.  xii.  27.  As 
for  Nicodemus,  we  also  account  for  what  he  experienced  when  on  the 
Holy  Friday  he  saw  Jesus  suspended  on  the  cross.  That  spectacle,  instead 
of  being  for  him,  as  for  others,  a  stumbling-block,  aground  of  unbelief  and 
despair,  causes  his  latent  faith  to  break  forth  (xix.  39).  This  fact  is  the 
answer  to  de  Wette's  question,  who  asks  if  this  anticipatory  revelation  of 
the  death  of  the  Messiah  was  not  contrary  to  the  pedagogic  wisdom  of 
Jesus.  Weiss,  who  is  not  willing  to  admit  that  Jesus  so  early  foresaw  and 
predicted  His  death,  thinks  that  Jesus  did  not  express  Himself  in  so  pre- 
cise a  way,  but  that  he  spoke  vaguely  of  some  lifting  up  which  would  be 
accorded  to  Him  during  His  earthly  life,  to  the  end  that  He  might  be 
recognized  as  Messiah  by  the  Jews.  But,  in  that  case,  it  is  necessary  to 
suppose :  1.  That  John  positively  falsified  the  account  of  the  words  of 
Jesus  ;  2.  That  Jesus  spoke  of  something  which  was  never  realized,  for  we 
know  not  what  that  supposed  lifting-up  can  be  ;  3.  There  no  longer  remains, 
in  this  case,  any  relation  between  the  prophecy  of  Jesus  and  the  matter  of 


394  FIRST   PART. 

the  brazen  serpent.    From  the  cross  Jesus  ascends  to  God,  from  whose 
love  this  decree  emanates  ((hi  must,  ver.  14). 

Ver.  16.  "  For  God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  only-begotten  Son, 
that  whosoever  believeth  on  Him  should  not  perish,  but  should  have  eternal 
life." — Here  is  the  knovpaviov,  the  heavenly  mystery,  par  excellence  ;  Jesus 
displays  the  source  of  the  redemptive  work,  which  He  has  just  described  ; 
it  is  the  love  of  God  itself.  The  world,  that  fallen  humanity  of  which  God 
in  the  Old  Testament  had  left  the  largest  part  outside  of  His  theocratic 
government  and  revelation,  and  which  the  Pharisees  devoted  to  wrath  and 
judgment,  Jesus  presents  to  Nicodemus  as  the  object  of  the  most  bound- 
less love  :  "  God  so  loved  the  world  ..."  The  gift  which  God  makes  to  it 
is  the  Son, — not  only  the  Son  of  man,  as  He  was  called  vv.  13,  14  in  rela- 
tion to  His  humanity,  but  His  only-begotten  Son.  The  intention,  in  fact,  is 
no  longer  to  make  prominent  the  homogeneity  of  nature  between  this 
Kedeemer  and  those  whom  He  is  to  instruct  and  save,  but  the  boundless- 
ness of  the  love  of  the  Father  ;  now  this  love  appears  from  what  this  mes- 
senger is  for  the  Father  Himself.  It  has  been  claimed  that  this  term, 
only-begotten  Son,  was  ascribed  to  Jesus  by  the  evangelist.  For  what 
reason  ?  Because,  both  in  his  Prologue  (i.  14-18),  and  in  his  Epistle  (iv.  9) 
he  himself  makes  use  of  it.  But  this  term  is,  in  the  LXX.,  the  translation  of 
the  Hebrew  TIT  (Ps.  xxv.  16;  xxxv.  17;  Prov.  iv.  3).  Why  should  not  Jesus 
have  employed  this  word  if  He  was,  as  we  cannot  doubt  (Matt.  xi.  27 ;  xxi.  37), 
conscious  of  His  unique  relation  to  God  ?  And  how  should  the  evangelist 
have  been  able  to  render  it  in  Greek  otherwise  than  the  LXX.  had  ren- 
dered it  ?  Man  had  once  offered  to  God  his  only  son ; .  could  God,  in  a 
matter  of  love,  remain  behind  His  creature  ? — The  choice  of  the  verb  is 
equally  significant  ;•  it  is  the  word  for  giving,  and  not  only  for  sending  ;  to 
give,  to  surrender,  and  that,  if  necessary,  even  to  the  last  limits  of  sacri- 
fice.— The  last  clause  produces  the  effect  of  a  musical  refrain  (comp.  ver.  14). 
It  is  the  homage  rendered  by  the  Son  to  the  love  of  the  Father  from  which 
everything  proceeds.  The  universality  of  salvation  (whosoever),  the  easiness 
of  the  means  (believeth),  the  greatness  of  the  evil  prevented  (should  not 
perish),  the  boundlessness,  in  excellence  and  in  duration,  of  the  good 
bestowed  (eternal  life) :  all  these  heavenly  ideas,  new  to  Nicodemus,  are 
crowded  into  this  sentence,  which  closes  the  exposition  of  the  true  Messi- 
anic salvation. — According  to  this  passage,  redemption  is  not  extorted  from 
the  divine  love  ;  it  is  its  thought,  it  is  its  work.  It  is  the  same  with  Paul : 
"  All  things  are  of  God,  who  reconciled  us  unto  Himself  by  Jesus  Christ " 
(2  Cor.  v.  18).  This  spontaneous  love  of  the  Father  for  the  sinful  world  is 
not  incompatible  with  the  wrath  and  the  threatenings  of  judgment ;  for 
here  is  not  the  love  of  communion,  which  unites  the  pardoned  sinner  to 
God  ;  but  a  love  of  compassion,  like  that  which  we  feel  towards  the  unfor- 
tunate or  enemies.  The  intensity  of  this  love  results  from  the  very  great- 
ness of  the  unhappiness  which  awaits  him  who  is  its  object.  Thus  are 
united  in  this  very  expression  the  two  apparently  incompatible  ideas 
which  are  contained  in  the  words :  so  loved  and  may  not  perish.  Some 
theologians,  beginning  with  Erasmus  (Neander,  Tholuck,  Olshausen,  Baum* 


chap.  in.  16.  395 

lein)  have  supposed  that  the  conversation  of  Jesus  and  Nicodemus  closes 
with  ver.  15,  and  that,  from  ver.  16,  it  is  the  evangelist  who  speaks,  com- 
menting with  his  own  reflections  on  the  words  of  his  Master.  This  opin- 
ion finds  its  support  in  the  past  tenses,  loved  and  were,  ver.  19,  which  seem 
to  designate  a  more  advanced  period  than  that  at  which  Jesus  conversed 
with  Nicodemus ;  in  the  expression  fiovoyevfc,  only-begotten  Son,  which 
belongs  to  John's  language  ;  finally,  in  the  fact  that,  from  this  point,  the 
dialogue-form  wholly  ceases.  The  for  of  ver.  16,  is,  on  this  view,  designed 
to  introduce  John's  explanations  ;  and  the  repetition  in  the  same  verse  of 
the  words  of  ver.  15  are,  as  it  were,  the  affirmation  of  the  disciple  answer- 
ing to  the  Master's  declaration. — But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  for  of  ver.  16 
is  not  a  sufficient  indication  of  the  passing  from  the  teaching  of  Jesus  to 
the  commentary  of  the  disciple.  The  author  must  have  marked  much 
more  distinctly  such  an  important  transition.  Then,  how  can  we  imagine 
that  the  emotion  which  bears  on  the  discourse  from  ver.  13  is  already 
exhausted  in  ver  15  ?  The  increasing  exaltation  with  which  Jesus  succes- 
sively presents  to  Nicodemus  the  wonders  of  divine  love,  the  incarnation 
(ver.  13)  and  redemption  (vv.  14, 15),  cannot  end  thus  abruptly  ;  the  thought 
can  rest,  only  when  it  has  once  reached  the  highest  principle  from  which 
these  unheard  of  gifts  flow,  the  infinite  love  of  the  Father.  To  give  glory  to 
God,  is  the  goal  to  which  the  heart  of  Jesus  always  tends.  Finally,  who 
could  believe  that  He  would  have  dryly  sent  Nicodemus  away  after  the 
words  of  ver.  15,  without  having  given  him  a  glimpse  of  the  effects  of  the 
salvation  announced,  and  without  having  addressed  to  him  for  himself  a 
word  of  encouragement  ?  Would  this  be  the  affectionate  sympathy  of  a 
truly  human  heart  ?  The  part  of  Jesus,  in  that  case,  would  be  reduced  to 
that  of  a  cold  catechist.  The  difficulties  which  have  given  occasion  to 
this  opinion  do  not  seem  to  us  very  serious.  The  past  tenses  of  ver.  19 
arc  justified  in  the  mouth  of  Jesus,  like  the  reproach  of  ver.  11 :  "  You 
receive  not  our  testimony,"  by  the  attitude,  which  the  population  and  authori- 
ties of  the  capital  had  already  taken  (ii.  19).  We  have  justified  by  the  con- 
text the  term  only-begotten  Son,  and  have  seen  that  it  would  hardly  be 
natural  to  refuse  it  to  Jesus  Himself.  The  terms  new  birth,  birth  of  water 
and  birth  of  the  Spirit  (vv.  3,  5)  are  also  not  found  in  the  rest  of  Jesus'  dis- 
courses ;  must  we,  for  this  reason,  doubt  that  they  are  His  ?  In  a  kind  of 
discoursing  so  original  as  His,  does  not  the  matter,  at  each  moment,  create 
an  original  form?  When  we  remember  that  the  ana^  ?.ey6/j.eva  (words 
employed  only  once)  are  counted  by  hundreds  in  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul 
(two  hundred  and  thirty  in  the  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  one  hun- 
dred and  forty-three  in  the  epistles  to  the  Colossians  and  Ephesians  taken 
together,  one  hundred  and  eighteen  in  the  Ep.  to  the  Hebrews),  how  can 
we  conclude  from  the  fact  that  a  term  is  found  only  once  in  the  discourses 
of  Jesus  which  have  been  preserved  to  us,  that  it  does  riot  really  belong  to 
His  language?  Finally,  the  cessation  of  the  dialogue-form  results  simply 
from  the  increasing  surprise  and  humble  docility  with  which  Nicodemus, 
from  this  point  onwards,  receives  the  revelation  of  the  heavenly  things. 
In  reality,  notwithstanding  this  silence,  the  dialogue  none  the  less  continues. 


396  FIRST  PAKT. 

For,  in  what  follows,  as  in  what  precedes,  Jesus  does  not  express  an  idea, 
does  not  pronounce  a  word,  which  is  not  in  direct  relation  to  the  thoughts 
and  needs  of  His  interlocutor,  and  that  as  far  as  ver.  21,  where  we  find,  at 
last,  the  word  of  encouragement  which  naturally  closes  the  conversa- 
tion, and  softens  the  painful  impression  which  must  have  heen  left  in  the 
heart  of  the  old  man  by  the  abrupt  and  severe  admonition  with  which  it 
had  begun. — De  Wette  and  Liicke,  while  maintaining  that  the  author  makes 
Jesus  speak  even  to  the  end,  nevertheless  think  that,  without  himself 
being  conscious  of  it,  he  mingled  more  and  more  his  own  reflections  with 
the  words  of  his  Master.  Nearly  the  same  is  also  the  opinion  of  Weiss, 
who  thinks  that,  in  general,  John  has  never  given  an  account  of  the  dis- 
courses of  Jesus  except  by  developing  them  in  his  own  style.  If,  in  what 
follows,  we  find  any  expression  wanting  in  appropriateness,  any  thought 
unconnected  with  the  given  situation,  it  will  indeed  be  necessary  to  accept 
such  a  judgment.  If  the  contrary  is  the  fact,  we  shall  have  the  right  to 
exclude  this  last  supposition  also. 

One  idea  is  inseparable  from  that  of  redemption, — it  is  that  of  judg- 
ment. Every  Pharisee  divided  man  into  the  saved  and  the  judged,  that  is 
to  say,  into  circumcised  and  uncircumcised,  into  Jews  and  Gentiles. 
Jesus,  who  has  just  revealed  the  redeeming  love  towards  the  whole  world, 
unfolds  now  to  Nicodemus  the  nature  of  the  true  judgment.  And  this 
revelation  also  is  a  complete  transformation  of  the  received  opinion.  It 
will  not  be  between  Jews  and  Gentiles,  it  will  be  between  believers  and  un- 
believers, whatever  may  be  their  nationality,  that  the  line  of  demarcation 
will  pass. 

Ver.  17.  "  For  God  sent  not  his l  Son  into  the  world  to  judge  the  world,  but 
that  the  world  might  be  saved  through  him."  For:  the  purpose  of 
the  mission  of  the  Son,  as  it  is  indicated  in  this  verse,  proves  that 
this  mission  is  indeed  a  work  of  love  (ver.  16).  The  word,  tvorld,  is  re- 
peated three  times  with  emphasis.  Nicodemus  must  hear  in  such  a  way 
as  no  more  to  forget  that  the  divine  benevolence  embraces  all  humanity. 
The  universalism  of  Paul,  in  its  germ,  is  in  these  verses  16,  17.  The  first 
clause,  by  its  negative  form,  is  intended  to  exclude  the  Jewish  idea,  ac- 
cording to  which  the  immediate  purpose  of  the  coming  of  the  Messiah 
was  to  execute  the  judgment  on  the  Gentile  nations.  Our  versions  trans- 
late, Kpiveiv,  in  general,  with  the  meaning  condemn;  Meyer  himself  still 
defends,this  meaning.  It  is  explained  thus :  "  Jesus  did  not  come  to  exe- 
cute a  judgment  of  condemnation  on  the  sinful  world."  But  why  should 
not  Jesus  have  said  KaraKpivecv,  to  condemn,  if  He  had  this  thought?  What 
He  means  to  say  is,  that  His  coming  into  the  world  has  for  its  purpose, 
not  an  act  of  judgment,  but  a  work  of  salvation.  Reuss  concludes  from 
this  saying  that  "  the  idea  of  a  future  and  universal  judgment  is  repudi- 
ated "  in  our  Gospel.  But  the  future  judgment  is  clearly  taught  in  vv.  27, 
28.  The  idea  which  Jesus  sets  aside  in  this  saying,  is  only  that  the  pres- 
ent coming  of  the  Messiah  has  for  its  purpose  a  great  external  judicial 

1  N  B  L  Tb  and  some  Mnu.  omit  avm/. 


chap.  in.  17,  18.  397 

act,  like  that  which  the  Pharisee  Nicodemus  was  certainly  expecting.  If 
a  judgment  is  to  take  place  as  a  personal  act  of  the  Messiah,  it  does  not 
appertain  to  this  coming.  However,  although  the  purpose  of  His  coming 
is  to  save,  not  to  judge,  a  judgment,  but  an  altogether  different  one 
from  that  of  which  the  Jews  were  thinking,  was  about  to  be  effected 
because  of  that  coming :  a  judgment  of  a  moral  nature,  in  which  it  is 
not  Jesus  who  will  pronounce  the  sentence,  but  every  man  will  himself 
decide  his  own  salvation  or  perdition. 

Ver.  18.  "He  that  believeth  on  him  is  not  judged  ;  but1  he  that  believeth  not 
is  judged  already,  because  he  hath  not  believed  on  the  name  of  the  only-begotten 
Son  of  God."  The  idea  of  this  verse  is  as  follows:  "I  do  not  judge  any 
one,  for  the  reason  that  he  who  believes  is  not  judged,  and  he  who  does 
not  believe  has  already  judged  himself."  As  has  been  well  said  :  "  Here 
is  justification  by  faith,  and  condemnation  by  unbelief." 2  Jesus  does  not 
judge  the  believer,  because  he  who  accepts  the  salvation  which  He  brings 
is  no  longer  a  subject  of  judgment.  Meyer,  Hengstenberg,  etc.,  and  our 
translators  [A.  V.]  render  the  word  npiveiv  here  also  by  condemn.  Weiss, 
Keil,  Westcott  acknowledge  that  this  sense  is  arbitrary.  The  passage  in 
v.  24  shows  that  it  is  contrary  to  the  true  thought  of  Jesus.  To  judge  is, 
after  a  detailed  investigation  of  the  acts,  to  pronounce  on  their  author  a 
judicial  sentence  deciding  as  to  his  innocence  or  his  guilt.  Now  the  Lord 
declares  that  the  believer,  being  already  introduced  into  eternal  life,  will 
not  be  subjected  to  an  investigation  of  this  kind.  He  will  appear  before 
the  tribunal,  indeed,  according  to  Rom.  xiv.  10;  2  Cor.  v.  10,  but  to  be 
recognized  as  saved  and  to  receive  his  place  in  the  kingdom  (Matt.  xxv.). 
If  faith  withdraws  man  from  the  judgment,  there  is  in  this  nothing  arbitrary. 
This  follows  precisely  from  the  fact  that,  through  the  interior  judgment  of 
repentance  which  precedes  and  follows  faith,  the  believer  is  introduced 
into  the  sphere  of  Christian  sanctification  which  is  a  continual  judgment 
of  oneself,  and  consequently  the  free  anticipation  of  the  judgment  (1  Cor. 
xi.  31).  The  present  ov  Kpivsrat,  is  not  judged,  is  that  of  the  idea.  Jesus 
does  not  judge  the  unbeliever,  because  he  who  refuses  to  believe  finds  his 
judgment  in  this  very  refusal.  The  word  ij6tj,  already,  and  the  substitution 
of  the  perfect  (/ct/cp^rat)  for  the  present  (xpheTat)  show  clearly  that  Jesus  is 
thinking  here  of  a  judgment  of  a  spiritual  nature,  which  is  exercised  here 
below  on  him  who  rejects  the  salvation  offered  in  Christ.  Such  a  man 
has  pronounced  on  himself,  by  his  unbelief,  and  without  any  need  on  the 
part  of  Jesus  of  intervening  judicially,  his  own  sentence.  It  is  self-evi- 
dent that  this  sentence  is  a  sentence  of  condemnation.  But  the  word 
does  not  say  this.  The  meaning  is:  The  one  is  not  to  be  judged;  the 
other  is  judged  already  ;  consequently,  the  Son  does  not  have  to  intervene 
personally  in  order  to  judge.  The  use  here  of  the  subjective  negative  (the 
first  pi)  belongs,  according  to  Bdumlein,  to  the  decline  of  the  language. 
According  to  Meyer,  this  form  has,  on  the  contrary,  its  regular  sense  :  in 
not  believing,"  or  "  because  he  does  not  believe."    The  title  of  only-begotten 

»  K  B  It*"*.  Orig. :  o  m,  for  o  fi«  m  in  all  the  rest.  *  H.  Jacottet 


398  FIRST   PART. 

Son  sets  forth  the  guilt  of  those  who  reject  such  a  being  and  the  work 
which  He  accomplishes.  The  more  glorious  the  Saviour  is,  the  more 
grave  a  matter  it  is  to  turn  away  from  Him.  The  more  holy  He  is,  divine 
in  His  entire  manifestation,  the  more  does  unbelief  towards  Him  bear 
witness  of  a  profane  sentiment.  His  name :  the  revelation  which  He 
gives  us  of  His  essence  (see  i.  12).  The  perfect  ///)  neTria-evKEv,  has  not  be- 
lieved, denotes  not  the  act  of  not  believing,  but  the  state  which  results  from 
it.  "  Because  he  is  not  in  the  favorable  position  of  a  man  who  has  given 
his  confidence  to  such  a  being."  The  jiii  is  used  here  as  among  the  later 
Greeks  (e.  g.  Lucian)  to  denote  the  cause  in  the  thought  of  the  speaker. 
The  moral  separation  between  men,  described  in  ver.  18,  constitutes  the 
judgment  in  its  essence ;  this  is  the  idea  developed  in  vv.  19-21.  By  the 
position  which  men  take  with  regai'd  to  Jesus,  they  class  themselves  as 
reproved  (vv.  19,  20)  or  saved  (ver.  21).  Thus  far,  Jesus  has  proved  that 
He  does  not  judge,  but  He  does  this  by  contrasting  with  the  outward  judg- 
ment, which  was  expected,  a  moral  judgment  of  which  no  one  dreamed. 
This  judgment  it  is  which  He  now  explains. 

Ver.  19.  "  Now  this  is  the  judgment,  that  the  light  is  come  into  the  world,  and 
men  loved  the  darkness  rather  than  the  light ;  for  their  ivorks  were  evil."  In 
rejecting  Jesus,  man  judges  himself.  The  strictest  inquiry  into  his  whole 
life  would  not  prove  his  disposition,  as  opposed  to  what  is  good,  better  than 
does  his  unbelief.  The  final  judicial  act  will  have  nothing  more  to  do  than 
to  ratify  this  sentence  which  he  pronounces  on  himself  (vv.  28,  29).  In 
order  to  make  the  matter  understood,  the  Lord  here  calls  Himself  the  light, 
that  is  to  say,  the  manifested  good,  the  divine  holiness  realized  before  the 
human  conscience.  It  follows  from  this,  that  the  attitude  which  the  man 
takes  in  relation  to  Him,  reveals  infallibly  his  inmost  moral  tendency. 
To  the  view  of  Jesus,  the  experiment  has  been  already  made  for  the  world 
which  surrounds  Him  :  "  Men  loved  rather  ..."  There  is  in  every  servant 
of  God,  in  proportion  to  his  holiness,  a  spiritual  tact  which  makes  him 
discern  immediately  the  moral  sympathy  or  antipathy  which  his  person 
and  his  message  excite.  The  visit  of  Jesus  to  Jerusalem  had  been  for 
Him  a  sufficient  revelation  of  the  moral  state  of  the  people  and  their 
rulers.  They  are  tlie  men  of  whom  He  speaks  in  this  verse,  but  with  the 
distinct  feeling  that  they  are  in  this  point  the  representatives  of  fallen 
humanity.  The  expression  loved  rather  is  not  designed,  as  Lilcke  thinks,  to 
extenuate,  the  guilt  of  unbelievers,  by  intimating  that  there  is  still  in  them 
an  attraction,  but  a  weaker  one,  towards  the  truth.  As  has  been  well  said, 
the  word  fiallov  does  not  mean  magis,  more,  but  potius,  rather.  This 
word,  therefore,  aggravates  the  responsibility  of  the  Jews,  by  bringing 
out  the  free  preference  with  which,  though  placed  in  presence  of  the  light, 
they  have  chosen  the  darkness  (comp.  ver.  11).  What  is,  indeed,  the 
ground  of  this  guilty  preference  ?  It  is  that  their  work3  are  evil.  They  are 
determined  to  persevere  in  the  evil  which  they  have  hitherto  committed ; 
this  is  the  reason  why  they  flee  from  the  light  which  condemns  it.  By 
displaying  the  true  nature  of  their  works,  the  light  would  force  them  to 
renounce  them.    The  term  to  ohotoq,  tlie  darkness,  includes  with  the  love 


chap.  in.  19,  20.  399 

of  evil  the  inward  falsehood  by  which  a  man  seeks  to  exculpate  himself. 
The  aorist  iiyairriaav,  loved,  designates  the  preference  as  an  act  which  has 
just  been  consummated  recently,  while  the  imperfect  yv,  were,  presents 
the  life  of  the  world  in  evil  as  a  fact  existing  long  before  the  appearance 
of  the  light.  The  word  spya,  works,  denotes  the  whole  moral  activity, 
tendency  and  acts.  In  the  following  verse,  Jesus  explains,  by  means  of  a 
comparison,  the  psychological  relation  between  immorality,  gross  or 
subtle,  and  unbelief. 

Ver.  20.  "  For,  every  one  who  practiseth  evil  hateth  the  light  and  doth  not 
come  to  the  light,1  that  his  works  may  not  be  condemned."  Night  was  reigning 
at  the  moment  when  Jesus  was  speaking  thus.  How  many  evil-doers  were 
taking  advantage  of  the  darkness,  to  pursue  their  criminal  designs  !  And 
it  was  not  accidental  that  they  had  chosen  this  hour.  Such  is  tbe  image 
of  that  which  takes  place  in  the  moral  world.  The  appearance  of  Jesus 
is  for  the  world  like  the  rising  of  the  sun  ;  it  manifests  the  true  character 
of  human  actions ;  whence  it  follows,  that  when  any  one  does  evil  and 
wishes  to  persevere  in  it,  he  turns  his  back  upon  Jesus  and  His  holiness.  If 
his  conscience  came  to  be  enlightened  by  this  brightness,  it  would  oblige 
him  to  renounce  that  which  he  wishes  to  keep.  He  denies  therefore,  and 
this  negation  is  for  him  the  night  in  which  he  can  continue  to  sin  :  such 
is  the  genesis  of  unbelief.  The  expression  6  (pavAa  tzpaaauv,  he  who  does 
evil,  denotes  not  only  the  tendency  to  which  the  man  has  hitherto  sur- 
rendered himself,  but  also  that  in  which  he  desires  to  persevere.  This  is 
what  the  present  participle  npdcauv  (instead  of  the  past  npd^ag)  expresses. 
For  the  word  novrjpd  {perverse  things)  is  substituted  the  word  yavla  (things 
of  notight)  of  ver.  19 ;  the  latter  is  taken  from  the  estimate  of  Jesus 
himself,  while  the  former  referred  to  the  intrinsic  nature  of  the  acts,  to 
their  fundamental  depravity.  We  must  also  notice  a  difference  between 
the  two  verbs  irpaTreiv  and  iroielv :  the  first  indicates  simply  labor — the 
question  is  of  works  of  nought — the  second  implies  effective  realization, 
in  the  good  the  product  remains.  But  we  need  not  believe  that  the  term 
practice  evil  refers  only  to  what  we  call  immoral  conduct.  Jesus  is  cer- 
tainly thinking,  also,  of  a  life  externally  honorable,  but  destitute  of  all 
serious  moral  reality,  like  that  of  the  greater  part  of  the  rulers  in  Israel, 
and  particularly  of  the  Pharisees  :  the  exaltation  of  the  /and  the  pursuit 
of  human  glory,  as  well  as  gross  immorality,  belong  to  the  fav^a  nparreiv, 
"practise  things  of  nought"  in  the  sense  in  which  Jesus  understands  it. — 
Miael,  he  hates,  expresses  the  instinctive,  immediate  antipathy;  ovk  ipxerai, 
he  comes  not,  denotes  the  deliberate  resolution.  The  verb  eMyxsiv  (perhaps 
from  Trpbg  eItjv  npiveiv,  to  hold  to  the  light  in  order  to  judge)  signifies :  to 
bring  to  light  the  erroneous  or  evil  nature  of  an  idea  or  a  deed. 

The  reason  of  unbelief,  therefore,  is  not  intellectual,  but  moral.  The 
proof  which  Jesus  gives,  in  ver.  20,  of  this  so  grave  fact  is  perfectly  lucid. 
All  that  Pascal  has  written  most  profoundly  on  the  relation  between  the 

'S  alone  omits  <cm  ovk  epxerai  eis  to  (/><■>?  reason  of  n  confounding  of  the  two  <^ws  on 
(and  he  dues  nut  come  tu  the  liyht)  evidently  by       the  part  of  the  copyist. 


400  FIRST   PART. 

will  and  the  understanding,  the  heart  and  the  belief,  is  already  in  advance 
contained  in  this  verse  and  the  one  which  follows.  But  that  which  is 
true  of  unbelief  is  equally  true  of  faith.  It  also  strikes  its  roots  into  the 
moral  life  ;  here  is  the  other  side  of  the  judgment : 

Ver.  21.  "  But  he  that  doeth  the  truth  cometh  to  the  light,  that  his  works  may 
be  made  manifest1  because  tliey  are  wrought  in  God."  Sincere  love  of  moral 
good  predisposes  to  faith ;  for  Jesus  is  the  good  personified.  There  are  in 
humanity,  even  before  the  appearance  of  Christ,  men  who,  although  like 
others  affected  by  inborn  evil,  react  against  their  evil  inclinations,  and 
pursue  with  a  noble  ardor  the  realization  of  the  moral  ideal  which  shines 
before  them.  Jesus  here  calls  them  those  who  do  the  truth.  St.  Paul,  also 
in  accord  with  St.  John  on  this  point,  describes  them  as  those  who  by  per- 
severing in  well-doing  scehfor  glory,  honor  and  incorruption  (Rom.  ii.  7).  This 
earnest  aspiration  after  the  good,  which  the  theocratic  discipline  stimulates 
and  protects  in  Israel,  forms  a  contrast  to  the  mummeries  of  the  Pharisaic 
righteousness.  It  can  be  present  in  a  penitent  publican,  no  less  than  in 
an  irreproachable  Pharisee.  The  same  idea  is  found  again  in  the  expres- 
sions to  be  of  God,  to  be  of  the  truth  (viii.  47,  xviii.  37).  This  disposition  is 
the  condition  of  all  real  faith  in  the  Gospel.  The  adherence  of  the  will  to 
the  preparatory  revelation  of  God,  whether  in  the  law  of  conscience  or  in 
that  of  Moses,  is  the  first  condition  of  the  adherence  to  the  higher  reve- 
lation of  divine  holiness  in  Jesus  Christ.  The  expression  to  do  the  truth 
denotes  the  persevering  effort  to  raise  one's  conduct  to  the  height  of  one's 
moral  consciousness,  to  realize  the  ideal  of  the  good  perceived  by  the  con- 
science ;  comp.  Rom.  vii.  The  soul  which,  it  may  be,  in  consequence  of 
the  bitter  experience  of  sin,  longs  after  holiness,  recognizes  in  Jesus  its 
realized  ideal  and  that  by  which  it  will  itself  attain  to  the  realization  of  it. 
The  figurative  expression  to  come  to  the  light  signifies  to  draw  near  to  Jesus, 
to  listen  to  Him  with  docility,  to  surrender  oneself  to  Him ;  comp.  Luke 
xv.  1,  2.  Is  there  not,  in  the  choice  of  this  figure,  a  delicate  allusion  to 
the  present  course  of  Nicodemus  ?  As  truly  as  this  night  which  reigns 
without  is  the  figure  of  the  unbelief  in  which  the  lovers  of  sin  envelop 
themselves,  so  really  is  this  light  around  which  these  few  interlocutors 
meet,  the  emblem  of  the  divine  brightness  which  Nicodemus  came  to  seek 
for.  And  so  it  will  come  to  pass.  It  is  the  farewell  of  Jesus :  Thou  desirest 
the  good ;  it  is  this  which  brings  thee  here.  Take  courage !  Thou  shalt 
find  it!  , 

If  the  upright  hearts  come  to  the  light,  it  is  because  they  do  not,  like 
those  spoken  of  before,  dread  the  manifestation  of  the  true  character  of 
their  conduct;  on  the  contrary,  they  desire  it:  To  the  end,  says  Jesus, 
"  that  their  works  may  be  manifested  because  they  are  done  in  God."  I  return 
thus  to  the  ordinary  translation  of  the  close  of  this  verse.  I  had  previously 
preferred  the  following:  That  they  may  be  manifested  as  being  done  in 
God ;  comp.  for  this  Greek  construction,  iv.  35.    But  the  first  construction 

1  {<  omits  almost  the  whole  of  this  verse  as  20,  21,  a  portion  of  the  authorities  in  ver.  21 
tax  as  on  (confusion  of  the  two  epya  avrov,  vv.       placing  avrov  after  epya). 


CHAP.  III.  21.  401 

is  more  natural  here.  The  truly  righteous  man  seeks,  as  Mcodemus  did, 
to  come  into  contact  with  Christ,  the  living  holiness,  because  he  has  within 
him  nothing  which  impels  him  to  withdraw  himself  from  the  light  of  God; 
on  the  contrary,  the  nature  of  his  works  is  the  cause  of  his  being  happy  to 
find  himself  fully  in  that  light.  The  expression  wrought  in  God  seems  very 
strong  to  characterize  the  works  of  the  sincere  man  before  he  has  found 
Christ.  But  let  us  not  forget  that,  both  in  Israel  and  even  beyond  the  theo- 
cratic sphere,  it  is  from  a  divine  impulse  that  everything  good  in  human 
life  proceeds.  It  is  the  Father  who  draws  souls  to  the  Son,  and  who  gives 
them  to  Him  (vi.  37,  44).  It  is  God  who  causes  to  resound  in  the  sincere 
soul  the  signal  for  the  strife,  ineffectual  though  it  be,  against  inborn  evil 
(Rom.  vii.).  Wherever  there  is  docility  on  the  part  of  man  towards  this 
divine  initiative,  this  expression  ivories  wrought  in  God  is  applicable,  which 
comprehends  as  well  the  sighs  of  the  humbled  publican  and  the  repentant 
believer  as  the  noble  aspirations  of  a  John  or  a  Nathanael.  Such  a  man, 
conscious  of  his  sincere  desire  for  the  good,  does  not  fear  to  expose  himself 
to  the  light  and  consequently  to  come  to  Christ.  The  more  he  acts  in  God, 
the  more  he  desires  to  see  clearly  within  himself,  to  the  end  of  attaining  a 
still  more  perfect  obedience.  In  the  previous  editions,  I  had  referred  the 
in  order  that  to  the  need  of  a  holy  approbation.  Weiss  sees  in  it  the  desire 
to  show  that  the  good  works  accomplished  are  those  of  God  and  not  those 
of  the  man.  I  think  that  the  question  is  rather  of  a  need  of  progress. 
Luthardt  seems  to  me  to  have  completely  perverted  the  meaning  of  this 
verse  and  to  have  lost  the  very  profound  teaching  which  it  contains,  by 
explaining:  "He  who  practices  the  moral  truth  manifested  in  Christ  soon 
attaches  himself  to  Christ  by  the  religious  bond  of  faith."  But  does  not 
the  practice  of  the  holiness  revealed  in  Christ  necessarily  imply  faith  in 
Him?    The  saying  of  Jesus  in  vii.  17  has  a  striking  analogy  to  this. 

"  In  humanity  anterior  to  Christ,"  says  Liieke  rightly,  "  two  kinds  of  men 
are  mingled  together.  With  the  appearance  of  Jesus,  the  separating 
begins;"  av-rj  ?j  Kpimg.  "Under  the  trees  of  the  same  forest,"  observes 
Lange,  "  all  sorts  of  birds  find  shelter  together  during  the  night.  But  in 
the  morning,  as  soon  as  the  sun  sheds  forth  his  rays,  some  close  their  eyes 
and  seek  the  darkest  retreat,  while  others  clap  their  wings  and  salute  the 
sun  with  their  songs.  Thus  the  appearing  of  Christ  separates  the  lovers 
of  the  day  from  those  of  the  night,  mingled  together  until  then  in  the  mass 
of  mankind."  We  must  not,  however,  understand  this  idea  in  the  sense 
which  the  Tubingen  school  ascribes  to  the  evangelist :  That  there  are  two 
kinds  of  men  opposite  in  their  nature.  All  the  expressions  used  by  John  : 
"They  loved  rather"  "to  practise  evil  things,"  "to  do  the  truth,"  are,  much 
rather,  borrowed  from  the  domain  of  free  choice  and  deliberate  action. 
(Comp.  Introd.,  pp.  132  f.). 

It  is  with  this  word  of  hope  that  Jesus  takes  leave  of  Nieodemus.  And 
we  can  easily  understand  why,  in  contrast  with  John  the  Baptist's  course 
(ver.  36),  Jesus  spoke,  in  the  first  place,  of  those  who  reject  the  light  (vv. 
19, 20),  and,  in  the  second  place,  of  those  who  seek  it  (ver.  21).  He  wished 
to  terminate  the  conversation  with  a  word  of  encouragement  addressed 
26 


402  FIRST   PART. 

to  His  interlocutor.  He  had  recognized  in  him  one  of  those  righteous 
souls  who  will  one  day  believe  and  whom  faith  will  lead  to  the  baptism 
of  water,  and  thereby  to  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit.  Henceforth  Jesus 
waits  for  him.  Ileuss  deems  the  silence  of  John  respecting  his  depart- 
ure surprising.  "  We  have,  indeed,  seen  him  come ;  but  we  do  not  see 
him  go  away.  We  are  wholly  ignorant  of  the  result  of  this  interview." 
Then  this  scholar  boldly  draws  therefrom  a  proof  against  the  historical 
reality  of  the  personage  of  Nicodemus  and  his  conversation  with  Jesus.  Is 
this  objection  serious?  The  evangelist  should  then  have  told  us  expressly, 
that  Nicodemus,  on  leaving  Jesus,  returned  to  his  own  home  and  went  to 
bed!  Does  not  the  effect  produced  upon  him  by  the  conversation  appear 
plainly  from  the  later  history  ?  Comp.  vii.  50,  51 ;  xix.  39.  John  respects 
the  mystery  of  the  inner  working  which  had  just  begun,  and  leaves  the 
facts  to  speak.  It  is  the  revelation  of  Jesus  to  Nicodemus  which  is  the 
subject  of  this  narrative,  and  not  the  biography  of  this  Pharisee.  No  more 
does  Matthew  mention  the  return  of  the  Twelve  after  their  first  mission 
(chap,  x.) ;  does  it  follow  from  this  that  their  mission  is  not  historical  ? 
The  narrative  of  our  Gospels  is  wholly  devoted  to  the  religious  end  and 
does  not  entertain  itself  with  empty  details. 

We  are  now  in  a  condition  to  give  a  judgment  respecting  this  interview. 
It  seems  to  me  that  its  historical  character  follows  from  the  perfect  appo- 
siteness,  which  we  have  established,  in  all  the  words  of  Jesus  and  in  their 
exact  appropriateness  to  the  given  situation.  The  statement  of  ver.  1,  "A 
man  of  the  Pharisees  "  is  found  to  be  the  key  of  the  whole  passage.  Every 
word  of  Jesus  is  like  a  shot  fired  at  close  quarters  with  such  an  interlocu- 
tor. He  begins  by  bringing  home  to  this  man  who  approaches  Him,  as 
well  assured  of  his  participation  in  the  divine  kingdom  as  of  his  very  exist- 
ence, a  sense  of" all  that  which  he  lacks,  and  by  saying,  although  in  other 
terms  :  "  Unless  thy  righteousness  surjjasses  that  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees, 
thou  shalt  not  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  After  having  thus  made  a  void 
in  this  heart  full  of  itself  and  its  own  righteousness,  he  endeavors  to  fill 
this  void  in  the  positive  part  of  the  conversation,  in  which  He  answers  the 
questions  which  Nicodemus  had  proposed  to  present  to  Him.  In  this 
answer,  He  opposes,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end,  programme  to  pro- 
gramme :  first,  Messiah  to  Messiah,  then,  salvation  to  salvation,  finally, 
judgment  to  judgment,  substituting  with  regard  to  each  of  these  points 
the  divine  thought  for  the  Pharisaic  expectation.  There  is  enough,  as  it 
seems  to  me,  in  this  direct  application,  this  constant  fitness,  and  this 
unshaken  steadiness  of  course  in  the  conversation  to  guarantee  its  reality. 
An  artificial  composition  of  the  second  century  would  not  have  succeeded 
in  adapting  itself  so  perfectly  to  the  given  situation.  In  any  case,  the 
cohesion  of  all  the  parts  of  the  conversation  is  too  evident  to  allow  of  ths 
distinction  between  the  part  belonging  to  Jesus  and  that  belonging  to  the 
evangelist.  Either  the  whole  is  a  free  composition  of  the  latter,  or  the 
whole  also  must  be  regarded  as  the  summary  of  a  real  conversation  of 
Jesus.  We  say :  the  summary ;  for  we  certainly  do  not  possess  a  complete 
report.    The  visit  of  Nicodemus,  of  course,  continued  longer  than  the  few 


chap.  in.  21.  403 

minutes  necessary  for  reading  the  account  of  it.  John  has  transmitted  to 
us  in  a  few  salient  words  the  quintessence  of  the  communications  of  Jesus 
at  this  juncture.  This  is  what  the  quite  vague  transitions  by  means  of  a 
simple  and,  nai,  indicate.  We  have  before  us  the  principal  mountain  peaks, 
but  not  the  whole  of  the  chain  (comp.  Introd.,  p.  99). 

III. — Jesus  in  the  Country  of  Judea :  III.  22-36. 

The  previous  testimonies  of  John  the  Baptist  were  appeals  to  faith. 
That  which  is  to  follow  assumes  the  character  of  a  threatening  protest 
against  the  generally  hostile  attitude  and  the  rising  unbelief  of  Israel. 
This  discourse  appertains,  therefore,  to  the  picture  of  the  manifestation  of 
Jesus  and  its  general  result  in  Israel. 

After  the  feast  of  the  Passover,  Jesus  did  not  immediately  return  to  Gali- 
lee ;  the  reason  of  this  course  of  action  will  be  pointed  out  in  iv.  43-45.  He 
repaired  to  the  country  region  of  Judea,  where  He  set  Himself  to  preach 
and  baptize  almost  as  John  the  Baptist  was  doing.  Vv.  25,  26,  lead  us  to 
suppose  that  the  place  where  Jesus  set  Himself  to  the  exercising  of  this 
ministry,  was  not  far  removed  from  that  in  Avhich  the  forerunner  was 
working. 

How  are  we  to  explain  this  form,  which  the  activity  of  Jesus  assumes 
at  this  time?  The  temple  was  closed  to  Him  and  He  had  gone  over  the 
holy  city,  without  meeting  in  it  any  other  man  of  note  disposed  seriously 
to  prefer  the  light  to  darkness,  except  Nicodemus ;  then  he  removes  still 
further  from  the  centre,  and  establishes  Himself  in  the  province.  To  this 
local  retreat  corresponds  a  modification  in  the  character  of  His  activity. 
He  had  presented  Himself  in  the  temple  with  full  authority,  as  a  sover- 
eign who  makes  his  entrance  into  his  palace.  That  summons  not  having 
been  accepted,  Jesus  cannot  continue  His  Messianic  activity ;  He  restricts, 
Himself  to  the  work  of  prophetic  preparation  ;  He  is  obliged  to  become 
again,  in  some  sort,  His  own  forerunner,  and  by  this  retrogade  step  He 
finds  Himself  placed,  for  a  moment,  at  the  same  point  which  John  the 
Baptist  had  reached  at  the  termination  of  his  ministry.  Hence  the  simul- 
taneousness  and  the  sort  of  competition  which  appeared  between  the  two 
ministries  and  the  two  baptisms.  After  His  return  to  Galilee,  Jesus  will 
Himself  renounce  this  rite,  and  as  the  single  element  of  Messianic  organi- 
zation He  will  only  preserve  the  apostolate.  He  will  no  longer  aim  at 
anything  except  to  awaken  faith  by  the  word.  The  foundation  of  the 
Church,  with  which  the  re-establishment  of  baptism  is  connected,  will  be 
deferred  to  the  epoch  when,  by  His  death  and  resurrection,  the  bond 
between  Him  and  the  unbelieving  people  shall  have  been  completely 
broken  and  the  foundation  of  the  new  society  prepared. 

These  changes  in  the  mode  of  Jesus'  activity  have  not  escaped  the  notice 
of  the  rationalists ;  they  have  seen  in  them  nothing  else  than  the  result  of 
a  growing  miscalculation.  Yet  Jesus  had  announced  all  from  the  first 
day  :  "  Destroy  this  temple;  "  and  the  final  success  of  His  work  proves  that 
there  was  something  better  here  than  the  result  of  a  deception.    Faith,  on 


404  FIRST  PART. 

the  contrary,  admires,  in  this  so  varied  course,  the  elasticity  of  the  divine 
plan  in  its  relations  to  human  freedom,  and  the  perfect  submissiveness 
with  which  the  Son  can  yield  to  the  daily  instructions  of  the  Father. 
Thereby  the  absence  of  plan  becomes  the  wisest  and  most  wonderful  of 
plans ;  and  the  divine  wisdom,  accepting  the  free  play  of  human  freedom, 
can  make  even  the  obstacles  which  the  resistance  of  men  opposes  to  it,  the 
means  of  realizing  its  designs.  This  glance  at  the  situation  explains  the 
momentary  juxtaposition  of  these  two  ministries,  the  one  of  which,  as  it 
seemed,  must  succeed  the  other. 

The  following  passage  contains :  1.  The  general  picture  of  the  situation 
(vv.  22-26) ;  2.  The  discourse  of  John  the  Baptist  (vv.  27-36). 

1.  Vv.  22-26. 

Ver.  22.  "  After  this  Jesus  came  with  his  disciples  into  the  country  of  Judea  ; 
and  he  tarried  there  with  them  and  baptized."  Merd  ravra  (after  this),  connects 
this  passage,  in  a  general  way,  with  ii.  23-25  :  "  Following  upon  this  activ- 
ity of  Jesus  at  Jerusalem."  'lovdaia  yrj  (the  land  of  Judea),  denotes  the 
country,  as  opposed  to  the  capital.  The  imperfect  he  xvas  tarrying,  and  he 
was  baptizing,  indicate  that  this  sojourn  was  of  some  duration.  The 
expression,  he  icas  baptizing,  is  more  exactly  defined  in  iv.  2 :  "  Yet  Jesus 
himself  baptized  not,  but  his  disciples."  The  moral  act  belonged  to  Jesus; 
the  material  operation  was  wrought  by  the  disciples.  If  these  two  pas- 
sages were  found  in  two  different  Gospels,  criticism  would  not  fail  imme- 
diately to  see  in  them  a  contradiction,  and  would  accuse  of  harmon- 
istic  bias  the  one  who  should  seek  to  explain  it.  The  intention  of  the 
narrator  in  our  passage  is  only  to  place  this  baptism  under  the  responsi- 
bility of  Jesus  Himself. 

Ver.  23.  "  Now  John  also  was  baptizing  in  JEnon,  near  to  Salim,  because 
there  was  abundance  of  water  there  ;  and  they  came  and  were  baptized."  JEn, 
from  which  Mnon,  denotes  a  fountain.  We  may  also,  with  Meyer,  make  of 
the  termination  on  an  abridgment  of  the  word  jona,  dove  ;  this  word  would 
thus  signify  the  fountain  of  the  dove.  This  locality  was  in  the  vicinity  of  a 
town  called  Salim.  The  situation  of  these  two  places  is  uncertain.  Eusc- 
bius  and  Jerome,  in  the  Onomasticon,  place  iEnon  eight  thousand  paces 
south  of  Bethsean  or  Scythopolis,  in  the  valley  of  the  Jordan,  on  the 
borders  of  Samaria  and  Galilee,  and  Salim,  a  little  further  to  the  west. 
And  indeed  there  has  recently  been  found  in  these  localities  a  ruin 
bearing  the  name  of  Aynun  (Palestine  Exploration  Report,  1S74).  From 
this,  therefore,  it  would  be  necessary  to  conclude  that  these  two  local- 
ities were  in  Samaria.  But  this  result  is  incompatible  with  the  words 
of  ver.  22  :  in  the  country  of  Judea  (on  the  supposition,  at  least,  that  the 
two  baptisms  were  near  each  other).  And,  above  all,  how  should  John 
have  settled  among  the  Samaritans?  How  could  he  have  expected  that 
the  multitudes  would  follow  him  into  the  midst  of  this  hostile  people? 
Eivald,  Wieseler,  Hengstenberg,  and  Miihlau,  because  of  these  reasons,  sup- 
pose an  altogether  different  locality.    In  Josh.  xv.  32  three  towns  are 


chap.  in.  22-24.  405 

spoken  of:  ShUhim,  Ain,  and  Rimmon,  situated  towards  the  southern 
frontier  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  on  the  borders  of  Edom  (comp.  xv.  21).  In 
Josh.  xix.  7  and  1  Chro'n.  iv.  32,  Ain  and  Rimmon  again  appear  together. 
Finally,  in  Neh.  xi.  29  these  two  names  are  blended  in  one :  En-Rimmon. 
Might  not^Enon  be  a  still  more  complete  contraction?  This  supposition 
would  do  away  with  the  difficulty  of  the  baptism  in  Samaria,  and  would  give 
a  very  appropriate  sense  to  the  reason  :  because  there  was  abundance  of  water 
tliere.  Indeed,  as  applied  to  a  region  generally  destitute  of  water  and  almost 
desert,  like  the  southern  extremity  of  Judah,  this  reason  has  greater  force 
than  if  the  question  were  of  a  country  rich  in  water,  like  Samaria. 

Jesus  would  thus  have  gone  over  all  the  territory  of  the  tribe  of  Judah, 
seeing  once  in  His  life  Bethlehem,  His  native  town,  Hebron,  the  city  of 
Abraham  and  David,  and  all  southern  Judea  even  as  far  as  Beersheba. 
This  remark  has  excited  the  derisive  humor  of  Reuss ;  we  do  not  at  all 
understand  the  reason  of  it.  In  the  Synoptical  Gospels,  we  see  Jesus 
making  a  series  of  excursions  as  far  as  the  northern  limits  of  the  Hoi/ 
Land,  once  even  to  Ca?sarea  Philippi,  in  the  vicinity  of  the  ancient  Dan,  at 
the  foot  of  Hermon,  at  another  time  as  far  as  into  the  regions  of  Tyre  and 
Sidon.  He  would  thus  have  visited  all  the  countries  of  the  theocratic 
domain  from  Dan  to  Beersheba.  Is  not  this  altogether  natural?  Hengsten- 
berg  has  taken  advantage  of  this  sojourn  of  Jesus  in  the  vicinity  of  the 
desert,  to  place  the  temptation  at  this  time.  This  opinion  is  chronol- 
ogically untenable. 

Ver.  24.  " For  John  had  not  yet  been  cast  into  prison"  This  remark  of 
the  evangelist  is  surprising,  because  there  is  nothing  in  what  precedes 
which  is  adapted  to  occasion  it.  The  fact  of  the  incarceration  of  John 
the  Baptist,  as  already  accomplished,  was  not,  in  any  way,  implied  in  the 
preceding  narrative.  It  is  therefore  elsewhere  than  in  our  Gospel  that  we 
must  seek  for  the  reason  why  the  evangelist  thinks  that  he  must  correct  a< 
misapprehension  existing  on  this  subject,  as  he  evidently  does  by  the  re- 
mark of  ver.  24.  This  reason  is  easily  discovered  in  the  narrative  of  our 
first  two  Synoptics  :  Matt.  iv.  12 :  "  Jesus,  having  heard  that  John  was  deliv- 
ered up,  withdrew  into  Galilee."  Mark  i.  14 :  "  After  that  John  was  de- 
livered up,  Jesus  came  into  Galilee."  These  words  immediately  follow  the 
account  of  the  baptism  and  temptation ;  they  would  necessarily  produce 
on  the  reader  the  impression  that  the  imprisonment  of  John  the  Baptist 
had  followed  very  closely  upon  the  baptism  of  Jesus,  and  preceded — even 
occasioned — His  first  return  to  Galilee  ;  thus  precisely  the  opinion  which 
the  remark  of  John  sets  aside.  The  account  in  Luke  iii.  19,  20  is  differ- 
ent ;  the  imprisonment  of  the  Baptist  is  there  evidently  mentioned  only 
by  way  of  anticipation.  Hengstenberg  thought  that  the  narrative  of  Mat- 
thew and  Mark  might  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  the  first  return  of 
Jesus  to  Galilee — the  one  which  John  relates  in  i.  44 — was  simply  omitted 
by  them.  But  we  have  seen  (ii.  11)  that  the  first  visit  of  Jesus  to  Caper- 
naum coincided  with  certain  scenes  of  the  very  first  period  of  the  Gali- 
lean ministry  related  by  the  Synoptics.  It  only  remains,  therefore,  to  ac- 
knowledge that  frequently  in  the  primitive  oral  tradition  the  first  two  re- 


406  FIRST  PAKT. 

turns  from  Judea  to  Galilee  (i.  44  and  iv.  1-3)  were  blended  together. 
From  this  identification  would,  naturally,  result  the  suppression  of  the 
entire  interval  which  had  separated  them — that  is  to  say,  of  almost  a 
whole  year  of  Jesus'  ministry.  To  recover  this  ground  which  had  disap- 
peared, John  was  thus  obliged  expressly  to  restore  the  distinction  between 
the  two  returns.  He  was  especially  obliged  to  do  this  on  reaching  the 
fact  which  he  is  about  to  relate,  a  fact  which  falls  precisely  in  this  interval. 
Hilgmfeld  himself,  speaking  of  this  passage,  says :  "  Involuntarily  the 
fourth  evangelist  bears  witness  here  of  his  acquaintance  with  the  Synop- 
tical narrative."  There  is  nothing  to  criticise  in  this  remark  except  the 
word  involuntarily.  For  the  intentional  character  of  this  parenthesis,  ver. 
24,  is  obvious.  We  have  already  proved  in  John  the  evident  intention  of 
distinguishing  these  two  ^returns  to  Galilee  by  the  manner  in  which  he 
spoke  of  the  miracle  of  Cana,  ii.  11 ;  we  shall  have  occasion  to  make  a 
similar  remark  of  the  same  character,  with  reference  to  iv.  54.  As  for 
the  way  in  which  this  confusion  arose  in  the  tradition  written  out  by  the 
Synoptics,  we  may  remember  that  it  was  only  after  the  second  return  to 
Galilee  that  Jesus  began  that  uninterrupted  prophetic  ministry  which  the 
first  three  Gospels  portray  for  us  very  particularly  and  which  was  the  be- 
ginning of  the  foundation  of  the  Church.  However  important  were  the 
attempts  made  in  Judea,  up  to  this  time,  in  the  description  of  the  develop- 
ment of  Jewish  unbelief  which  John  traced,  they  could  just  as  easily  be 
omitted  in  the  narrative  of  the  actual  establishment  of  the  kingdom  of 
God,  and  of  the  foundation  of  the  Church  which  was  the  result  of  the 
Galilean  ministry,  related  especially  by  the  Synoptics. 

We  can  draw  from  this  twenty-fourth  verse  an  important  conclusion 
with  respect  to -the  position  of  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  in  the 
midst  of  the  primitive  Church.  Who  else  but  an  apostle,  but  an  apostle 
of  the  first  rank,  but  an  apostle  recognized  as  such,  could  have  taken  in  his 
writing  a  position  so  sovereign  with  regard  to  the  tradition  received  in  the 
Church,  emanating  from  the  Twelve,  and  recorded  in  the  Gospels  which 
were  anterior  to  his  own?  By  a  stroke  of  the  pen  to  introduce  so  consid- 
erable a  modification  in  a  narrative  clothed  with  such  authority,  he  must 
have  been,  and  have  felt  himself  to  be,  possessed  of  an  authority  which 
was  altogether  incontestable. 

Ver.  25.  "  Tliere  arose  therefore  a  dispide  on  the,  part  of  John's  disciples  with 
a  Jew,1  touching  purification."  >  The  occasion  of  the  following  discourse  was 
a  discussion  provoked  by  the  competition  of  the  two  neighboring  bap- 
tisms. Ouv,  therefore,  marks  this  relation.  The  expression  on  the  part  of 
the  disciples,  shows  that  John's  disciples  were  the  instigators.  The  reading 
of  the  greater  part  of  the  Mjj.  'lovfiaiov,  a  Jew,  instead  of  'lovdaiuv,  some 
Jews,  is  now  generally  preferred.  I  accept  it,  without  being  able  to  convince 
myself  altogether  of  its  authenticity.  Should  not  the  substantive  'lovfaiov 
have  been  accompanied  by  the  adjective  riv6q  ?    And  would  an  altercation 

i  The  T.  R.  reads  Iou«aiwi«  {Jews)  with  K  Man.  It  Syr™*.  Cop.  Orig.  All  the  rest  read 
Iov5aiov  (a  Jew). 


chap.  in.  25,  26.  407 

with  a  mere  unknown  individual  have  deserved  to  be  so  expressly  marked  ? 
The  three  most  ancient  Versions  agree  in  favor  of  the  reading  'lovdaiuv, 
Jews.  The  Sinaitic  MS.  also  reads  in  this  way.  The  two  substantives  in 
ov,  before  and  after  this  word,  might  have  occasioned  an  error.  The  sub- 
ject of  the  discussion  was  the  true  mode  of  purification.  Of  what  purifi- 
cation? Evidently  of  that  which  should  prepare  the  Jews  for  the  king- 
dom of  the  Messiah.  Meyer  thinks  that  the  Jew  ascribed  to  the  baptism 
of  Jesus  a  greater  efficacy  than  to  that  of  John.  Chrysostom,  followed  by 
some  others,  holds  that  the  Jew  had  had  himself  baptized  already  by  the 
disciples  of  Jesus.  Hofmann  and  Luthardt  suppose,  on  the  contrary,  be- 
cause of  the  term  Jew,  that  he  belonged  to  the  Pharisaic  party,  hostile 
both  to  Jesus  and  to  John,  and  that  he  had  maliciously  recounted  to  the 
disciples  of  John  the  successes  of  Jesus.  The  use  of  this  term  scarcely 
allows  us,  indeed,  to  suppose  in  this  man  kindly  feelings,  either  towards 
Jesus  or  towards  John.  Perhaps  in  response  to  the  disciples  of  John  who 
invited  him  to  have  himself  baptized,  reminding  him  of  the  promises  of 
the  Old  Testament  (Ezek.  xxxvi.  25,  etc.),  he  answered  ironically  that  one 
knew  not  to  whom  to  go  :  "  Your  master  began  ;  here  is  a  second  who 
succeeds  better  than  he ;  which  of  the  two  says  the  truth  ?  "  The  question 
was  embarrassing.  The  disciples  of  John  decide  to  submit  it  to  their  mas- 
ter.   This  historical  situation  is  too  well  defined  to  have  been  invented. 

Ver.  26.  "  And  tliey  came  to  John  and  said  to  him :  Master,  he  that  was 
with  thee  beyond  the  Jordan,  to  whom  thou  hast  borne  vjitness,  behold,  he  bap- 
tizeth,  and  all  men  come  to  him."  There  is  something  of  bitterness  in  these 
words.  The  words :  "  to  whom  thou  hast  borne  witness  "  make  prominent 
the  generosity  which  John  had  shown  towards  Jesus :  "  See  there,  how 
thou  hast  acted,  thou  (ov) ;  and  see  here,  how  He  is  acting,  He  (ovrog). 
'I6e,  behold,  sets  forth  the  unexpected  character  of  such  a  course:  "He. 
baptizes,  quite  like  thyself ;  thus,  not  content  with  asserting  Himself,  He 
seeks  to  set  thee  aside."  Baptism  was  a  special  rite,  introduced  by  John, 
and  distinguishing  his  ministry  from  every  other.  By  appropriating  it  to 
Himself,  Jesus  seemed  to  usurp  the  part  peculiar  to  His  predecessor  and 
to  desire  to  throw  him  altogether  into  the  shade.  And  what  is  more  poig- 
nant in  this  course  of  action  is,  that  it  succeeds:  "All  men  come  to 
him."  This  exaggeration,  all,  is  the  result  of  spite.  Matt.  ix.  14  shows  us 
John's  disciples  in  Galilee,  after  the  imprisonment  of  their  master,  ani- 
mated by  the  same  hostile  disposition  and  combining  more  or  less  with 
the  adversaries  of  Jesus. 

2.  Vv.  27-36. 

John  does  not  solve  the  difficulty  raised  by  the  Jew  or  the  Jews.  He 
goes  directly  to  the  foundation  of  things.  After  having  characterized  the 
relation  between  the  two  personages  of  whom  it  is  desired  to  make  rivals, 
he  shows  that  all  opposition,  even  all  comparison  between  them,  is  out  of 
place.  The  solution  of  the  pending  question  follows  of  itself  from  this 
general  explanation.    The  discourse  has  two  parts  which  are  very  distinct 


408  FIRST    PART. 

And  the  idea  of  which  evidently  answers  to  the  given  situation:  "I"  and 
"  He,"  or,  to  use  John's  own  expressions,  the  friend  of  the  bridegroom  (vv. 
27-30),  and  the  bridegroom  (vv.  31-36).  The  first  must  be  thrown  into  the 
shade  and  decrease ;  the  second  must  increase.  Each  of  the  two,  there- 
fore, is  in  his  place ;  that  which  grieves  his  disciples  fills  him  with  joy.  It 
will  be  asked  why  the  forerunner  did  not  at  that  moment  abandon  his 
particular  position,  in  order  to  go  and  join  himself,  with  his  disciples,  to 
the  retinue  of  Jesus.  The  answer  to  this  question,  often  proposed,  is  not 
difficult.  Summoned  to  prepare  Israel  for  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah, 
John  was  like  the  captain  of  a  vessel,  who  must  be  the  last  to  abandon  the 
old  ship,  when  all  its  company  are  already  safely  in  the  new  one.  His 
special  part,  officially  marked  out,  continued  so  long  as  the  end  was  not 
yet  attained,  that  is,  so  long  as  the  whole  people  were  not  yet  given  to 
Jesus. 

Vv.  2.7-30.    "J." 

Ver.  27.  "  John  answered  and  said :  A  man  can  receive  nothing  except  that 
which  hath  been  given  him  from  heaven."  As  far  as  ver.  30,  which  is  the 
centre  of  this  discourse,  the  dominant  idea  is  that  of  the  person  and  mis- 
sion of  the  forerunner.  Accordingly,  it  seems  natural  to  apply  the  gen- 
eral sentence  of  ver.  27  specially  to  John  the  Baptist.  He  is  urged  to  de- 
fend himself  against  Jesus  who  is  despoiling  him.  "I  cannot  take,"  he 
answers,  "  that  which  God  has  not  given  me  " — in  other  words,  "  I  cannot 
assign  to  myself  my  part :  make  myself  the  bridegroom,  when  I  am  only 
the  friend  of  the  bridegroom."  So  Bengel,  Liicke,  Reuss,  Hengstenberg,  I 
myself  (first  ed.).  I  abandoned  this  application  in  the  second  edition,  for 
that  of  Olshausen,  de  Wette,  Meyer,  Weiss,  according  to  which  this  maxim 
refers  to  Jesus  :  "  He  would  not  be  obtaining  such  success,  if  God  Him- 
self did  not  give  it  to  Him."  With  this  meaning,  this  saying  must  be  re- 
garded as  the  summary  of  the  two  parts  of  the  discourse  (J  and  He),  and 
not  only  of  the  first  part.  Yet  I  ask  myself  whether  it  is  not  proper,  as  I 
did  originally,  to  refer  this  maxim  to  the  mission  conferred,  rather  than 
the  success  obtained ;  comp.  Heb.  v.  4.  Then  the  asyndeton  between  vv. 
26  and  27  is  more  consonant  with  the  application  to  John  only,  since  he 
announces  the  following  verse  as  an  energetic  reaffirmation  of  the  thought 
of  ve.r.  26. 

Ver.  28.  "  Ye  .yourselves  bear  me1  witness  that  I  said:  I  am  not  the  Christ, 
but  I  am  sent  before  him."  John  expressly  applies  to  himself  the  maxim 
of  ver.  26.  He  has  informed  his  disciples,  from  the  beginning,  of  the  fact 
of  which  they  are  complaining.  He  has  always  said  to  them,  that  it  was 
not  given  to  him  to  be  the  Christ,  that  his  mission  went  no  further  than 
to  open  the  way  for  Him.  He  appeals,  with  respect  to  this  point,  to  their 
own  recollection  and  discharges  Himself  thus  from  all  responsibility  for 
their  jealous  humor  towards  Jesus.  The  words :  "  Ye  bear  me  witness," 
seem  to  allude  to  their  own  expression,  in  ver.  26,  where  they  had  recalled 

>  The  Mjj.,  N  E  F  H  M  V,  and  GO  Mnn.  omit  not  (we). 


chap.  in.  27-30.  409 

the  conduct  of  John  with  reference  to  Jesus.  Then,  he  explains  to  them, 
by  a  comparison,  the  feeling  which  he  experiences  and  which  is  so  dif- 
ferent from  theirs. 

Ver.  29.  "  He  thai  hath  the  bride  is  the  bridegroom,  and  the  friend  of  the 
bridegroom,  ivho  standelh  and  heareth l  him,  rejoiceth  greatly  because  of  the 
bridegroom's  voice;  this,  my  joy,  therefore,  is  now  perfect."  His  position  is 
subordinate  to  that  of  Jesus,  but  it  has  also  its  privileges  and  its  own  joy, 
and  that  joy  perfectly  satisfies  him.  Ni/if?  (the  bride),  is  the  Messianic 
community  which  John  the  Baptist  was  to  form  in  Israel  that  he  might 
lead  it  to  Jesus;  vv/i$u>c  (the  bridegroom),  designates  the  Messiah,  and,  if 
we  may  so  speak,  the  betrothed  of  this  spiritual  bride.  The  name  Jehovah 
signifies  precisely  :  He  who  shall  be  or  shall  come.  According  to  the  Old 
Testament,  indeed,  the  Lord  would  not  confide  this  part  of  bridegroom  to 
any  other  than  Himself,  and  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  is  to  be  the  high- 
est  manifestation  of  Jehovah  Himself  (p.  276) ;  comp.  Is.  liv.  5 ;  Hos.  ii.  19 ; 
Matt.  ix.  15 ;  xxv.  1  f. ;  Eph.  v.  32 ;  Apoc.  xix.  7,  etc.  The  functions  of 
the  marriage  friend  were,  first,  to  ask  the  hand  of  the  young  woman,  then 
to  serve  as  an  intermediary  between  the  betrothed  couple  during  the  time 
of  betrothal,  and  finally,  to  preside  at  the  marriage-feast;  a  touching  image 
of  the  part  of  John  the  Baptist :  6  £oti/k6s  he  who  standeth.  This  word 
expresses,  as  Hengstenberg  says,  "  the  happy  passivity  "  of  him  who  beholds, 
listens  and  enjoys.  While  he  fulfills  his  office  in  presence  of  the  betrothed, 
the  marriage-friend  hears  the  noble  and  joyous  accents  of  his  friend,  which 
transport  him  with  joy.  John  speaks  only  of  hearing,  not  of  seeing. 
Why?  Is  it  because  he  is  himself  removed  from  Jesus?  But  then,  how 
can  he  even  speak  of  hearing  f  If  this  term  has  a  meaning  applicable  to 
John  the  Baptist,  it  implies  that  certain  words  of  Jesus  had  been  reported 
to  him,  and  had  filled  his  heart  with  joy  and  admiration.  And  how,  in- 
deed, could  it  have  been  otherwise  ?  Could  Andrew,  Simon  Peter,  John, 
these  former  disciples  of  the  Baptist,  be  in  his  neighborhood  without 
coming  to  him,  to  give  an  account  of  all  which  they  heard  and  saw? 
This  is  the  bridegroom's  voice,  which  causes  the  heart  of  his  friend  to  leap 
for  joy.  The  phrase,  %apa  xaiPeiv  {to  rejoice  with  joy),  corresponds  to  a 
Hebrew  construction  (the  infinitive  placed  before  the  finite  verb  to 
strengthen  the  verbal  idea) ;  comp.  tsrtPN  row,  Is.  lxi.  10  (and  the  LXX) ; 
Luke  xxii.  15.  This  expression  describes  the  joy  of  John  as  a  joy  reach- 
ing to  the  full,  and,  consequently,  as  excluding  every  feeling  of  a  different 
sort,  such  as  that  which  the  disciples  were  attempting  to  awaken  in  him. 
The  words:  this  joy  which  is  mine,  contrast  his  joy  as  the  marriage-friend  to 
that  of  the  bridegroom.  John  alludes  to  those  words  of  the  disciples  :  all 
go  to  him;  in  this  spectacle  is  hit  joy  as  friend.  Yle-nUipurai,  not :  has  been 
accomplished  (Rilliet),  the  aorist  would  be  necessary,  but:  is,  at  this  very 
moment,  raised  to  its  highest  point.  He  means :  "  that  which  calls  forth 
vexation  in  you  is  precisely  the  thing  which  fulfills  my  joy." 

Ver.  30.  "  He  must  increase,  but  I  must  decrease."     Here  is  the  expres- 

1  X  places  aviuv  after  eorijKiot. 


410  FIRST  PART. 

sion  which  forms  the  connecting  link  between  the  two  parts  of  the  dis- 
course, announcing  the  second  and  summing  up  the  first.  The  friend  of 
the  bridegroom  had,  at  the  beginning  of  the  relation,  the  principal  part ; 
it  was  he  alone  who  appeared.  But,  in  proportion  as  the  relation  develops 
itself,  his  part  diminishes-  he  must  disappear  and  leave  the  bridegroom 
to  become  the  sole  person.  This  is  the  position  of  John  the  Baptist ;  he 
accepts  it,  and  desires  no  other.  No  one  could  have  invented  this  admir- 
able saying,  a  permanent  motto  of  every  true  servant  of  Christ. 

At  this  point,  Bengel,  Tholuck,  Olshausen  and  others,  make  the  discourse 
of  the  Baptist  end,  and  the  reflections  of  the  evangelist  begin.  They  rest 
principally  on  the  Johannean  character  of  the  style  in  what  follows, 
and  on  the  reproduction  of  certain  thoughts  of  the  conversation  with 
Nicodemus  (see,  especially,  vv.  31,  32).  To  pronounce  a  decision,  we 
must  study  the  discourse  even  to  the  end.  But,  in  itself,  it  would  be 
scarcely  natural  that  the  words  of  ver.  30,  he  mxist  increase,  should  not  be 
developed  in  what  follows,  as  the  other  words,  and  I  must  decrease,  have 
been  in  what  precedes. 

Vv.  31-36.  "He." 

The  bridegroom,  He  must  increase,  while  the  friend  decreases,  for  He 
is  superior  to  him,  first,  through  His  origin  (ver.  31),  then,  through  the 
perfection  of  His  teaching  (vv.  32-34),  finally,  through  His  dignity  as  Son, 
and  the  absolute  sovereignty  which  belongs  to  Him  as  such  (ver.  35). 
The  discourse  closes  with  a  practical  conclusion  (ver.  36). 

Ver.  31.  "  He  that  cometh  from  above  is  above  all;  l  he  that  is  of  the  earth,9 
is  of  the  earth,  and  speaketh  as  being  of  the  earth  ;  he  that  cometh  from  heaven 
is  above  all."  3  With  his  own  earthly  nature  John  contrasts  the  heavenly 
origin  of  Jesus.  'Avudev,  from  above,  is  applied  here,  not  to  the  mission — 
for  that  of  John  is  also  from  above — but  to  the  origin  of  the  person.  The 
all  denotes  the  divine  agents  in  general.  All,  like  John  himself,  are  to  be 
eclipsed  by  the  Messiah.  The  words  three  times  repeated :  of  the  earth, 
forcibly  express  the  sphere  to  which  John  belongs  and  beyond  which  he 
cannot  go.  The  first  time  they  refer  to  the  origin  (d>v  «)  :  a  mere  man ; 
the  second,  to  the  mode  of  existence  (eo-n)  :  as  being  of  the  earth,  he  re- 
mains earthly  in  his  whole  manner  of  being,  feeling  and  thinking  (comp. 
the  antithesis  ver.  13) ;  the  third  time,  to  the  teaching  (laid):  seeing  the 
things  of  heaven  only  from  .beneath,  from  his  earthly  dwelling-place. 
This  is  true  of  John,  even  as  a  prophet.  No  doubt,  in  certain  isolated 
moments  and  as  if  through  partial  openings,  he  catches  a  glimpse  of  the 
things  from  above;  but  even  in  his  exstacies  he  speaks  of  God  only  as  an 
earthly  being.  So,  while  inviting  to  repentance,  he  does  not  introduce 
into  the  kingdom.  This  estimate  of  John  by  himself  is  in  harmony  with 
the  judgment  of  Jesus,  Matt.  xi.  11 :  "  The  least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is 
greater  than  he."    And  the  shaking  of  his  faith,  which  followed  so  soon, 

'X  Dlt,lj*:  icon  bofore  o  up.  '{{D  some  Mnn.  a   b   Syr°<".   omit  enavu 

2N  :  «iri  instead  of  t<;  D:  airo.  vavTuiv  eirn  (above  all)  the  se'eond  time. 


chap.  in.  31-34.  411 

was  not  long  in  demonstrating  the  justice  of  it.  After  having  thus  put  in 
their  proper  place,  as  contrasted  with  Jesus,  all  the  servants  of  heaven, 
John  returns  to  the  principal  theme:  He.  If,  with  some  of  the  Mjj.,  we 
reject  the  last  words  of  this  verse :  is  above  all,  the  words  he  that  cometh 
from  heaven  must  be  made  the  subject  of  the  verb  bears  witness,  ver.  82 
(rejecting  the  not).  But  the  fullest  and  richest  reading  is  also  the  one 
most  accordant  with  the  spirit  of  the  text.  By  the  last  words,  John  re- 
turns to  the  real  subject  of  this  part  of  his  discourse,  Jesus,  from  which  he 
had  turned  aside,  for  a  moment,  in  order  to  make  more  prominent  His 
superiority  by  the  contrast  with  himself. 

Ver.  32.  "  What l  he  hath  seen  and  heard,  of  that2  he  beareth  ivitness ;  and 
no  man  receivcth  his  witness."  The  ictu,  and,  is  omitted  by  the  Alexandrian 
authorities,  and  no  doubt  rightly ;  asyndeta  are  frequent  in  this  discourse. 
From  the  heavenly  origin  of  Jesus  follows  the  perfection  of  His  teaching. 
He  is  in  filial  communion  with  the  Father.  When  He  speaks  of  divine 
things,  He  speaks  of  them  as  an  immediate  witness.  This  saying  is  the 
echo  of  that  of  Jesus  in  ver.  11.  In  reproducing  it,  the  forerunner  declares 
that  Jesus  has  affirmed  nothing  respecting  Himself  which  is  not  the  exact 
truth.  But  how  could  he  know  this  ?  We  think  we  have  answered  this 
question  in  the  explanation  of  ver.  29.  By  the  last  words,  John  confirms 
the  severe  judgment  which  Jesus  had  passed  upon  the  conduct  of  the 
people  and  their  rulers  (ver.  11).  However,  while  declaring,  as  Jesus  had 
done,  the  general  unbelief  of  Israel,  John  does  not  deny  individual  ex- 
ceptions ;  he  brings  them  out  expressly  in  ver.  33.  What  he  means  here 
by  the  word  no  one,  is  that  these  exceptions  which  seem  so  numerous  to 
the  view  of  his  disciples  that  they  make  the  whole  ("all"  ver.  2G),  are  to 
his  view  only  an  imperceptible  minority.  To  the  exaggeration  of  envy, 
he  opposes  that  of  zeal :  "  Where  you  say  :  all,  as  for  me,  I  say  :  no  one." 
He  would  not  be  satisfied  unless  he  saw  the  Sanhedrim  in  a  body,  fol- 
lowed by  the  whole  people,  coming  to  render  homage  to  the  bridegroom 
of  the  Messianic  community.  Then,  he  could,  himself  also,  abandon  his 
office  as  friend  of  the  bridegroom,  and  come  to  sit,  as  spouse,  at  the  Mes- 
siah's feet.  We  should  notice  the  verbs  in  the  present  tense,  "  he  testifies 
...  no  one  receives,"  which  place  us  in  the  time  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus, 
and  do  not  permit  us  to  put  this  part  of  the  discourse  in  the  evangelist's 
mouth. 

Vv.  33, 34.  "  He  that  hath  received  his  testimony  hath  set  his  seal  that  God  is 
true ;  34,  for  he  whom  God  hath  sent  speakcth  the  words  of  God ;  for  lie 
ffiveth3  not  the  Spirit  by  measure."  There  are,  nevertheless,  some  believers, 
and  what  is  the  grandeur  and  beauty  of  the  part  which  they  act!  Z^pa- 
yi&iv,  to  seal,  to  legalise  an  act  by  affixing  one's  seal  to  it.  This  is  what 
the  believer  does  in  relation  to  the  testimony  which  Christ  gives ;  in 
ranging  himself  among  those  who  accept  it,  he  has  the  honor  of  associat- 
ing, once  for  all,  his  personal  responsibility  with  that  of  God  who  speaks 

1  K<u  (and)  is  omitted  by  X  B  D  L  T*  It^i  *  T.  It.  15  Mjj.  Syr.  road,  niter  StSuatv,  o 

gyr*"  Cop.  Orig.  0«x  (Qod)  omitted  by  H  B  C  L  T». 

*  K  D  omit  rovro. 


412  FIRST  PART. 

by  His  messenger.  Indeed,  this  certification  of  truth,  adjudged  to  Jesus 
by  the  believer,  rises  even  to  God  Himself.  This  is  what  ia  explained 
by  ver.  34  {for).  The  utterances  of  Jesus  are  to  such  a  degree  those  of 
God,  that  to  certify  the  truth  of  the  former  is  to  attest  the  veracity  of  God 
Himself.  Some  think  that  the  idea  of  the  divine  veracity  refers  to  the 
fulfillment  of  the  prophecies  which  faith  proclaims.  But  this  idea  has  no 
connection  with  the  context.  According  to  others,  John  means  that  to 
believe  in  Jesus  is  to  attest  the  truth  of  the  declaration  which  God  gave 
on  His  behalf  at  the  time  of  His  baptism.  This  sense  would  be  natural 
enough  in  itself,  but  it  does  not  accord  well  with  ver.  31.  The  profound 
thought  contained  in  this  expression  of  John  is  the  following :  In  receiv- 
ing the  utterances  of  Jesus  with  faith  in  their  divine  character,  man 
boldly  declares  that  what  is  divine  cannot  be  false,  and  proclaims  thus  the 
incorruptible  veracity  of  God.  We  must  notice  the  aorist  ka^payiaev,  set 
his  seal:  it  is  an  accomplished  act.  And  what  an  act!  He  affixes  His 
private  signature  by  his  faith  to  the  divine  testimony,  and  becomes  thus 
conjointly  responsible  for  the  veracity  of  God  Himself.  There  is  evidently 
somewhat  of  exaltation  in  this  paradoxical  form,  by  which  John  expresses 
the  grandeur  of  the  act  of  faith.  The  expression  whom  he  hath  sent  (which 
recalls  ver.  17),  must  be  taken  in  the  most  absolute  sense.  The  other 
divine  messengers  merit  this  name  only  in  an  inexact  sense ;  they  are,  in 
reality,  only  raised  up ;  to  be  sent,  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word,  one 
must  be  from  above  (ver.  31).  The  same  absolute  force  should  be  given 
to  the  expression :  the  words  of  God :  He  alone  possesses  the  complete, 
absolute  divine  revelation.  This  is  what  the  article  t&,  the,  indicates;  all 
others,  John  the  Baptist  himself,  have  only  fragments  of  it.  And  whence 
comes  this  complete  character  of  His  revelation  ?  From  the  fact  that  the 
communication  which  is  made  to  Him  of  the  Spirit  is  without  measure. 
The  T.  R.  reads,  after  diduav,  6  Oeos :  "  God  gives  the  Spirit  ..."  The 
Alexandrian  authorities  unanimously  reject  this  subject,  God;  and  it  is 
probable  that  it  is  a  gloss,  but  a  gloss  which  is  just  to  the  sense.  It  is 
derived  from  the  first  clause  of  the  verse.  No  doubt  the  Spirit  might  be 
made  the  subject,  as  I  myself  tried  to  do  formerly.  The  position  of  the 
word  to  rrvevfia,  the  Spirit,  however,  is  not  favorable  to  this  sense.  And  it 
is  more  simple  to  understand  the  subject  of  the  preceding  clause.  The 
present  Siduoiv  gives,  as  well  as  the  expression :  "  not  by  measure"  are 
explained  by  the  recollection  qf  the  vision  of  the  baptism  :  John  saw  the 
Spirit  in  the  form'  of  a  dove,  that  is  to  say,  in  its  living  totality,  descending 
and  abiding  upon  Him.  Meyer,  offended  by  the  ellipsis  of  the  pronoun 
airy,  to  him,  makes  a  general  maxim  out  of  this  saying,  with  the  following 
sense :  "  God  is  not  obliged  always  to  give  the  Spirit,  only  in  a  definite 
measure,  as  He  formerly  did  in  the  case  of  the  prophets.  He  may,  if  He 
pleases,  give  it  once  without  measure  in  its  fullness,"  from  which  this 
application  is  understood  :  "And  this  is  what  He  has  done  with  respect  to 
the  Son."  But  thus  precisely  the  thing  would  be  understood  which  ought 
to  be  expressed,  and  expressed  which  might  very  well  have  been  left  to  be 
understood.     Perhaps,  the  ellipsis  of  the  pronoun  airy,  to  Him,  arises 


chap.  in.  35,  36.  413 

from  the  fact  that  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  to  Jesus  is  in  reality  of  a  universal 
bearing.  God  does  not  give  it  to  Him  for  Himself  only,  but  for  all.  It  is 
a  permanent,  absolute  gift. 

Ver.  35.  "  The  Father  loveth  the  Son  and  hath  given  all  things  into  his 
hand." — The  asyndeton  between  this  verse  and  the  preceding  may  be  ren- 
dered by  this  emphatic  form  :  "  Because  also  the  Father  loveth  ..." 
This  absolute  communication  of  the  Spirit  results  from  the  incomparable 
love  which  the  Father  has  for  the  Son.  These  words  are,  as  it  were,  the 
echo  of  that  divine  declaration  which  John  had  heard  at  the  baptism  : 
"  This  is  my  beloved  Son."  The  term  aya.Tr?,  loves,  is  taken  in  the  absolute 
sense,  like  the  expressions  :  sent  and  the  words.  Jesus  had  used  the  term 
Son,  when  speaking  with  Nicodemus,  vv.  16-18 ;  the  second  Psalm  already 
applied  it  to  the  Messiah  in  vv.  7,  12  (where  every  other  explanation 
seems  to  us  untenable) ;  Isaiah  and  Micah  had  expressed  themselves  in  a 
similar  way  (Is.  ix.  5;  Micah  v.  2,  3).  John  himself  had  heard  it  at  the 
baptism.  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  he  uses  it  here.  From  this 
love  of  the  Father  flows  the  gift  of  all  things.  Some  interpreters,  starting 
from  ver.  34,  have  applied  this  expression  solely  to  spiritual  gifts,  to  the 
powers  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  the  expression  into  His  hand  does  not 
accord  with  this  sense.  There  is  rather  an  advance  upon  the  idea  of  ver. 
34 :  "  Not  only  the  Spirit,  but  all  things."  By  the  Spirit,  the  Son  reigns  in 
the  heart  of  believers ;  this  is  not  enough ;  the  Father  has,  moreover, 
given  Him  universal  sovereignty,  that  He  may  be  able  to  make  all  things 
serve  the  good  of  His  own.  This  is  exactly  the  thought  which  Paul 
expresses  in  Eph.  i.  22  by  that  untranslatable  phrase :  avrbv  iduKev  Ke^alyv 
vrrep  rravra  tjj  iKKkTjcia.  The  hand  is  the  symbol  of  free  disposal.  Thereby 
John  meant  to  say  :  "I  complain  of  being  despoiled  by  Him!  But  He  has 
a  right  to  everything  and  can  take  everything  without  encroachment." 
And  from  this  follows  the  striking  application  which  he  makes  to  his  dis- 
ciples, in  closing,  of  the  truth  which  he  has  just  proclaimed  : 

Ver.  36.  "He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  hath  eternal  life;  but  he  that  obeyeth 
not  the  Son  shall  not  see l  life,  but  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him."  This  is 
the  practical  consequence  to  be  drawn  from  the  supreme  greatness  of  the 
Son.  These  last  words  present  a  great  similarity  to  the  close  of  Ps.  ii : 
"  Do  reverence  to  the  Son,  lest  he  be  angry,  and  ye  perish  in  the  ivay  when,  in  a, 
little  time,  his  wrath  will  be  kindled  ;  but  blessed  are  they  that  put  their  trust  in 
him."  Only  John,  the  reverse  of  the  Psalmist  and  of  Jesus  Himself  (iii. 
19-21),  begins  with  believers,  to  end  with  unbelievers.  It  is  because  he 
would  give  a  stern  and  last  warning  to  his  disciples  and  the  entire  nation. 
John  declares,  as  Jesus  had  said  to  Nicodemus,  that  all  depends  for  every 
man  on  faith  and  unbelief,  and  that  the  absolute  value  of  these  two  moral 
facts  arises  from  the  supreme  dignity  of  Him  who  is  the  object  of  them : 
the  Son.  This  name  is  sufficient  to  explain  why  faith  gives  life,  why 
unbelief  brings  wrath.  The  phrase  6  aireiduv,  he  who  disobeys,  brings  out 
the  voluntary  side  in  unbelief,  that  of  revolt.  The  Son  is  the  legitimate 
sovereign ;  unbelief  is  the  refusal  to  submit.    The  words  :  the  ivrath  abides, 

1 «  reads  ov<c  «x€t  (hath  not),  instead  of  ovk  oi/>ct<u  (shall  not  see). 


414  FIKST   PART. 

have  often  been  understood  in  this  sense:  The  natural  condemnation 
abides,  because  the  act  which  alone  could  have  removed  it,  that  of  faith, 
has  not  taken  place.  But  this  sense  seems  to  us  weak  and  strained,  and 
is  only  imperfectly  connected  with  what  precedes.  The  question  is  rather 
of  the  wrath  called  forth  by  the  very  refusal  of  obedience,  and  falling 
upon  the  unbeliever  as  such.  Is  it  not  just  that  God  should  be  angry  ?  If 
faith  seals  the  veracity  of  God  (ver.  33),  unbelief  makes  God  a  liar  (1  John 
v.  10). — The  future  shall  see  is  opposed  to  the  present  has.  Not  only  does 
he  not  have  life  now,  but  when  it  shall  be  outwardly  revealed  in  its  perfect 
form — that  of  glory — he  shall  not  behold  it ;  it  shall  be  for  him  as  though 
it  were  not.  Here  is  a  word  which  shows  clearly  that  the  ordinary  escha- 
tology  is  by  no  means  foreign  to  the  fourth  Gospel.  The  verb  fievei,  abides, 
in  spite  of  its  correlation  with  the  future  biperai,  shall  see,  is  a  present,  and 
should  be  written  fihu.  The  present  abides  expresses,  much  better  than 
the  future  shall  abide,  the  notion  of  permanence.  All  other  wrath  is  revo- 
cable ;  that  which  befalls  unbelief  abides  forever.  Thus  the  epithet  eternal 
of  the  first  clause  has  its  counterpart  in  the  second. 

Respecting  the  fact  which  we  have  just  been  studying,  the  following  is  Rcnan's 
judgment:  "  The  twenty-second  and  following  verses,  as  far  as  ver.  2  of  chap,  iv., 
transport  us  into  what  is  thoroughly  historical.  .  .  .  This  is  extremely  remark- 
able. The  Synoptics  have  nothing  like  it"  (p.  491). — As  to  the  discourse,  it  may 
be  called  :  the  last  word  of  the  Old  Covenant.  It  recalls  that  threatening  of 
Malachi  which  closes  the  Old  Testament :  "  Lest  I  come  and  smite  the  earth  with  a 
curse."  It  accords  thus  with  the  given  situation  :  In  view  of  the  unbelief  which 
was  emphatically  manifested  even  among  his  disciples,  the  forerunner  completes 
his  previous  calls  to  faith  by  a  menacing  warning.  All  the  details  of  the  discourse 
are  in  harmony  with  the  character  of  the  person  of  the  Baptist.  There  is  not  a 
word  which  cannot  be  fully  explained  in  his  mouth.  Vv.  27,  29,  30  have  a  seal 
of  inimitable  originality ;  no  other  than  the  forerunner,  in  his  unique  situation, 
would  have  been  able  to  create  them.  Ver.  35  is  simply  the  echo  of  the  divine 
declaration  which  he  had  himself  heard  at  the  moment  of  the  baptism.  In  ver. 
34  there  is  formulated  no  less  simply  the  entire  content  of  the  vision  which  was 
beheld  at  that  same  moment.  Ver.  28  is  the  reproduction  of  his  own  testimony 
in  the  Synoptics  (Matt.  iii.  and  parallels).  Ver.  36  also  recalls  his  former  preach- 
ings on  the  wrath  to  come  (Matt.  iii.  7)  and  that  axe  already  laid  unto  the  root  of  the 
trees  (iii.  10)  with  which  he  had  threatened  Israel.  There  remain  only  vv.  31,  32. 
We  believe  we  have  indicated  the  very  probable  origin  of  these  verses  (see  on 
ver.  32).  Will  any  one  find  an  objection  in  the  Johannean  coloring  of  the  style? 
But  we  must  recall  to  mind  the  fact  that  we  have  here  the  Greek  reproduction  by 
the  evangelist's  pen  of  a  discourse  given  in  Aramaic  (see  Introd.  pp.  172-175). 
I'  is  entirely  impossible  to  imagine  a  writer  of  a  later  epoch  carrying  himself  back 
thus  into  the  midst  of  the  facts,  drawing  all  the  words  from  the  given  situation, 
and,  above  all,  adapting  to  it  with  so  much  precision  the  progress  of  the  discourse 
(John  and  Jesus),  and  binding  together  the  two  parts  of  it  by  the  admirable 
saying  of  ver.  30.  Weizsaclcer  himself  cannot  refrain  from  acknowledging  (p.  268) 
"  that  there  are  in  this  discourse  elements  of  detail  which  distinctly  mark  the 
Baptist's  own  point  of  view"  (vv.  27,  34,  35,  36). 


chap.  iv.  1-42.  415 

We  have  already  replied  to  the  objection  derived  from  the  special  and  inde- 
pendent position  which  John  the  Baptist  keeps,  instead  of  going  to  rank  himself 
among  the  disciples  of  Jesus.  As  long  as  the  aim  of  his  mission — to  lead,  Israel 
to  Jesus, — was  so  far  from  being  attained,  that  preparatory  mission  continued,  and 
the  Baptist  was  not  free  to  exchange  it  for  the  position  of  a  disciple  winch  would 
have  been  more  satisfactory  to  him  (ver.  29).  It  is  asked  how,  after  such  a 
discourse  of  their  Master,  John's  disciples  could  have  subsequently  formed  them- 
selves into  an  anti-Christian  sect?  But  a  small  number  from  among  the  innumer- 
able multitude  of  those  baptized  by  John  were  present  at  this  scene,  and  it  would, 
in  truth,  be  much  to  expect  of  a  discourse — to  suppose  that  it  could  have  extir- 
pated a  feeling  of  jealousy  which  was  so  deep  that  we  even  find  the  traces  of  it 
again  in  the  Synoptics  (Matt.  ix.  14  and  parallels).  On  the  point  in  Matt.  xi.  2, 
also  alleged  in  opposition  to  the  authenticity  of  this  discourse,  see  on  i.  34. 

Weiss  holds,  like  Beuss,  that  this  discourse  contains  authentic  elements,  but 
worked  over  by  the  evangelist,  and  that  he  has  fused  them  into  one  whole  with 
his  own  ideas.  Thus,  he  proves  the  authenticity  of  the  saying  of  ver.  34  by  this 
argument :  The  perfection  of  Jesus'  teaching  is  here  ascribed  by  the  forerunner  to 
the  action  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  while  John  the  Evangelist  ascribes  it  to  the  remem- 
brance which  He  had  of  His  knowledge  of  the  Father  in  His  pre-existent  state. 
This  difference  between  the  idea  of  the  evangelist  and  that  of  the  Baptist  must 
prove  the  historical  character  of  the  discourse,  at  least  in  this  point.  But  we 
have  seen  hitherto  and  we  shall  continue  to  discover  that  this  way  of  conceiving 
of  the  higher  knowledge  of  Jesus,  which  Weiss  attributes  to  the  evangelist,  is  by 
no  means  in  harmony  with  the  text  and  with  the  thought  of  our  fourth  Gospel. 
This  alleged  difference  between  his  conception  and  that  of  the  Baptist  does 
not  exist. 

Our  Gospel  does  not  give  an  account  of  the  imprisonment  of  John  the  Baptist. 
But  the  saying  of  Jesus  (v.  35)  implies  the  disappearance  of  the  forerunner.  This 
took  place,  therefore,  very  shortly  after  this  last  testimony  uttered  by  him  in 
Judea  (see  at  iv.  1).  The  fact  of  John's  death  was  omitted  here,  like  so  many 
other  facts  with  which  the  author  knows  that  his  readers  are  well  acquainted,  and 
the  mention  of  which  does  not  fall  within  his  plan. 

I  cannot  believe  (see  p.  258)  that  the  account  which  occupies  our  attention 
was  written  without  some  allusion  to  the  disciples  of  John,  who  were  moving 
about  in  considerable  numbers  in  Asia  Minor;  not,  surely,  that  I  would  wish  to 
claim,  that  the  entire  fourth  Gospel  owes  its  existence  to  this  polemical  design, 
but  it  has  entered  as  a  factor  into  its  composition  (comp.  Introd.,  pp.  213, 
214). 

SECOND   SECTION. 

IV.  1-42. 

Jesus  in  Samaria. 

The  first  phase  of  the  public  ministry  of  Jesus  is  ended.  Unbelief  on 
the  part  of  the  masses,  faith  on  the  part  of  a  few,  public  attention  greatly 
aroused,  such  is  the  result  of  His  work  in  Judea.  Nevertheless  the  un- 
easiness which  He  sees  appearing  among  the  leaders  of  the  people  with 
relation  to  Himself,  is  for  Him  the  signal  for  retreat.     He  does  not  wish 


416  FIRST  PART. 

to  engage  prematurely  in  a  conflict  which  He  knows  to  be  inevitable. 
He  abandons  Judea  therefore  to  His  enemies  and,  returning  to  Galilee, 
He  makes  that  retired  province,  from  this  time  onward,  the  ordinary  the- 
atre of  His  activity. 

The  direct  road  from  Judea  to  Galilee  passed  through  Samaria.  But 
was  it  the  one  which  was  followed  by  the  Jews,  for  example  the  Galilean 
caravans  which  went  to  the  feasts  at  Jerusalem?  Writers  ordinarily 
answer  in  the  affirmative,  resting  upon  the  passage  of  Josephus  Antiq.  vi. 
1:  "It  was  the  custom  of  the  Galileans  to  pass  through  Samaria  in  order 
to  go  to  the  feasts  at  Jerusalem."  But  R.  Steck '  has  concluded,  not  with- 
out reason,  from  a  passage  in  the  Life  of  Josephus  (chap.  52) :  "  Those 
who  wish  to  go  quickly  from  Galilee  to  Jerusalem  must  pass  through 
Samaria,"  that  the  custom  of  which  that  author  speaks  in  the  Antiquities 
was  not  so  general  as  the  first  passage  seems  to  imply.  Perhaps  this  road 
was  that  of  the  festival  caravans ;  but  it  was  not  that  of  the  Jews  who 
were  of  strict  observance,  at  least  in  private  life.  As  to  Jesus  it  has  been 
claimed  that  by  following  this  road  in  this  case,  He  would  have  put  Him- 
self in  contradiction  to  His  own  word  in  Matt.  x.  5,  where,  on  sending 
them  out  to  preach,  He  said  to  the  apostles  :  "  Go  not  into  the  way  of  the 
Gentiles  and  enter  not  into  any  city  of  the  Samaritans  ;  but  go  ye  rather  to  the 
lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel."  But,  between  passing  through  Samaria 
(dia  ttjc  "Zafiap.,  ver.  4)  and  making  the  Samaritan  people  the  object  of  a 
mission,  there  is  an  easily  appreciable  difference.  We  should  much 
rather  acknowledge,  with  Hengstenberg,  that  it  might  be  befitting  for 
Jesus  to  give  once,  during  His  earthly  life,  an  example  of  largeness  of 
heart  to  His  apostles  which  might  afterwards  direct  the  Christian  mission 
throughout  the  whole  world.  Luke  ix.  51  proves  that  Jesus  really  did 
not  fear  to  approach  the  Samaritan  soil. 

The  fact  which  is  to  follow  has  a  typical  significance.  Jesus  Himself 
acutely  feels  it  (ver.  38).  This  Samaritan  woman  and  these  inhabitants 
of  Sychar,  by  the  readiness  and  earnestness  of  their  faith,  and  by  the 
contrast  of  their  conduct  with  that  of  the  Israelitish  people,  become  in 
His  eyes  the  first-fruits,  as  it  were,  of  the  conversion  of  the  Gentile 
world.  There  is  therein  a  sign  for  Him  of  the  future  destiny  of  the  king- 
dom of  God  on  earth.  Must  we  from  this  conclude,  with  Baur,  that  this 
whole  account  is  only  an  idea  presented  in  action  by  the  author  of  our 
Gospel?  Certainly  not.  If  the  Samaritan  woman  was  nothing  but  a 
personification  of  the  Gentile  world,  how  would  the  author  have  putinto  her 
mouth  (ver.  20  f.)  a  strictly  monotheistic  profession  of  faith,  as  well  as  the 
hope  of  the  near  advent  of  the  Messiah  (ver.  25 ;  comp.  ver.  42)  ?  Because 
a  fact  has  an  ideal  and  prophetic  significance,  it  does  not  follow  that  it  is 
fictitious.  If  there  is  a  story  of  the  Saviour's  life  which,  by  reason  of  the 
vivacity  and  freshness  of  its  totality  and  its  details,  bears  the  seal  of  his- 
toric truth,  it  is  this.  Renan  himself  says  :  "  Most  of  the  circumstances 
of  the  narrative  bear  a  strikingly  impressive  stamp  of  truth."  (Vie  de 
Jesus,  p.  243.) 

i  Jahrb.  f.  prot.  TheoL,  1880,  IV.,  (Der  Pilgerweg  der  Galilaer  nach  Jerusalem). 


chap.  iv.  1-3.  417 

As  an  example  of  faith,  this  incident  is  connected  with  the  two  preced- 
ing representations  :  that  of  the  faith  of  the  apostles  (i.  38  ff.)  and  that  of 
the  visit  of  Nicodemus  (iii.  i.— 21).  These  are  the  luminous  parts  of  the 
narrative  which  alternate  with  the  sombre  parts,  representing  the  begin- 
ning of  unbelief  (i.  19  ff. ;  ii.  12  ff. ;  iii.  25  ff.). 

We  distinguish  in  this  narrative  the  following  three  phases  :  1.  Jesus 
and  the  Samaritan  woman  :  vv.  1-26 ;  2.  Jesus  and  the  disciples  :  vv.  27- 
88 ;  3.  Jesus  and  the  Samaritans :  vv.  39-42. 

I. — Jesus  and  the  Samaritan  Woman :  vv.  1-26. 

In  this  first  phase  we  see  how  Jesus  succeeds  in  awaking  faith  in  a  soul 
which  was  a  stranger  to  all  spiritual  life.  The  historical  situation  is 
described  in  vv.  1-6. 

Vv.  1-3.  "  When  therefore  the  Lord l  kneiv  that  the  Pharisees  had  heard  thai 
Jesus  made  and  baptized  more  disciples  than2  John, — 2,  though  Jesus  did  not 
himself  baptize,  but  his  disciples, — 3,  he  left  Judea,  and  departed  again s  into 
Galilee."  Ver.  1.  explains  the  motive  which  leads  Jesus  to  leave  Judea : 
A  report  has  reached  the  Pharisees  respecting  Him,  according  to  which 
this  new  personage  may  become  more  formidable  than  John  himself. 
Ovv,  therefore:  because  of  this  great  concourse  of  people,  mentioned  in  iii. 
23-26.  The  title :  the  Lord  (in  the  larger  part  of  the  MSS.),  is  but  rarely 
applied  to  Jesus  during  His  earthly  life  (vi.  23;  xi.  2).  It  pre-suppose3 
the  habit  of  representing  Jesus  to  the  mind  as  raised  to  glory.  It  is  fre- 
quent in  the  epistles.  If  it  is  authentic  in  this  passage  (see  the  various 
reading  of  three  MSS.,  which  read :  Jesus),  it  is  occasioned  either  by  the 
feeling  of  the  divine  greatness  of  Jesus,  which  manifests  itself  in  the  pre- 
ceding section,  or,  more  simply,  by  the  desire  of  avoiding  the  repeti- 
tion of  the  name  of  Jesus,  which  occurs  again  a  few  words  further  on.- 
The  expression  had  heard  excludes  a  supernatural  knowledge.  We  see 
in  what  follows  that  the  tenor  of  the  report  made  at  Jerusalem  is  textually 
reproduced ;  comp.  the  name  of  Jesus  instead  of  the  pronoun  He,  and 
the  present  tenses  noiel  and  pawrifri,  makes  and  baptizes.  Jesus  must  have 
appeared  more  dangerous  than  John,  first,  because  of  the  Messianic  tes- 
timony which  John  had  borne  to  Him,  and,  then,  because  of  His  course 
of  action  which  was  much  more  independent  of  legal  and  Pharisaic 
forms ;  finally,  because  of  His  miracles ;  with  relation  to  John,  comp.  x. 
41.  The  reading  of  the  five  Mjj.,  which  omit  r/,  than,  could  only  have  this 
meaning :  "  that  the  Pharisees  had  heard  that  Jesus  is  making  more  dis- 
ciples, and  that  (on  his  side)  John  is  baptizing."  This  meaning  is  strange, 
and  even  absurd.  The  term  disciples, which  here  denotes  the  baptized, 
will  be  found  again  in  vii.  3  in  this  special  sense. 

The  practical  conclusion  which  Jesus  draws  from  this  report  maj'  lead 

1  K  A  A  some  Mnn.  Itpi«iqu«  Vg.  Syr.  *  nakiv  (again)  is  found  in  {<  C  D  L  M  T*> 
Cop.  read  o  lno-ow;  (Jesus)  instead  of  o  xvpiot  some  Mnn.  Itpi">q<»«  Vg.  Cop.  Syr"*,  ltisomit- 
(the  Lord).  ted  by  all  the  other  documents. 

2  A  B  G  L  r  reject  r,  (than). 

27 


418  FIRST   PART. 

us  to  suppose  that  John  had  been  already  arrested  and  that,  as  Heng- 
stenbcrg  thinks,  the  Pharisees  had  played  a  part  in  this  imprisonment; 
comp.  the  term  irapedddrj,  was  delivered  up,  Matt.  iv.  12 ;  it  was,  he  .says, 
by  the  hands  of  the  Pharisees,  that  John  had  fallen  under  the  power  of 
Herod.  But  it  will  be  asked  why  Jesus  retires  into  Galilee,  into  the  do- 
main of  Herod;  was  not  this  running  in  the  face  of  danger?  No;  for 
this  prince's  hatred  to  John  was  a  personal  matter.  As  to  His  religious 
activity,  Jesus  had  less  hindrance  to  fear  on  the  part  of  Herod  than  on 
that  of  the  dominant  party  in  Judea. 

The  remark  of  ver.  2  is  designed  to  give  precision  to  the  indefinite  ex- 
pression used  by  the  evangelist  himself,  iii.  22 :  that  Jesus  is  baptizing. 
Nothing  is  indifferent  in  the  Lord's  mode  of  acting,  and  John  does  not 
wish  to  allow  a  false  idea'  to  be  formed  by  his  readers,  respecting  one  of 
His  acts.  Why  did  Jesus  baptize,  and  that  without  Himself  baptizing? 
By  baptizing,  He  attested  the  unity  of  His  work  with  that  of  the  forerun- 
ner. By  not  Himself  baptizing,  He  made  the  superiority  of  His  position 
above  that  of  John  the  Baptist  to  be  felt.  He  recalled  to  mind  that  which 
the  latter  had  said  :  "  I  baptize  you  with  water,  there  cometh  another  who 
will  baptize  you  with  the  Spirit  and  with  fire,"  and  reserved  expressly  for 
Himself  that  higher  baptism.  The  first  of  these  observations  makes  us 
understand  why,  at  the  end  of  a  certain  time,  He  discontinued  the  bap- 
tism of  water,  and  the  second,  why  He  re-established  it  later  as  a  type  of 
the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  which  was  to  come.  At  all  events,  we  must  not 
compare  this  course  of  action  with  that  of  Paul  (1  Cor.  i.  17)  and  of  Peter 
(Acts  x.  48), which  had  quite  another  aim.  If  He  gave  up  this  rite  in  the 
interval,  this  fact  stands  in  relation  to  that  other:  that  Jesus  ceased  tak- 
ing a  Messianic -position  in  Galilee,  to  content  Himself  with  the  part  of  a 
prophet,  up  to  the  moment  when  He  presented  Himself  again  in  Judea 
as  the  Son  of  David  and  the  promised  Messiah  (chap.  xii.).  At  the  same 
time,  He  gave  up  transforming  into  a  Messianic  community,  by  means  of 
baptism,  that  Israel  whose  unbelief  emphatically  manifested  itself  towards 
Him.  There  are  therefore  three  degrees  in  the  institution  of  baptism : 
1.  The  baptism  of  John :  a  preparation  for  the  Messianic  kingdom  by 
repentance;  2.  The  baptism  of  Jesus,  at  the  beginning  of  His  ministry: 
a  sign  of  attachment  to  the  person  of  the  Messiah,  with  the  character  of 
disciples ;  3.  The  baptism  re-instituted  by  Jesus  after  His  resurrection :  a 
consecration  to  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit.  Those  who  had  received  the 
first  of  these  three  baptisms  (e.  g.  the  apostles)  do  not  seem  to  have  sub- 
mitted afterwards  to  the  second  or  third.  Jesus  made  use  of  them  to 
administer  these  two  latter  baptisms  (ver.  2;  Acts  ii.).  It  is  not  without 
reason  that  Beck  has  compared  the  baptism  of  infants  in  the  Christian 
Church  with  the  second  of  these  three  baptisms. 

The  departure  from  Judea  is  pointed  out,  ver.  3,  as  a  distinct  act  of  re- 
turn to  Galilee  ;  and  this  because,  according  to  ver.  1,  the  real  object  of 
Jesus  was  much  less  to  go  thither  than  to  depart  thence.  The  word  7ra^i>, 
again,  which  is  read  by  six  Mjj.,  alludes  to  a  previous  return  to  Galilee  (i. 
44).    John  avails  himself  of  each  occasion  to  distinguish  these  two  returns 


chap.  iv.  4,  5.  419 

which  had  been  identified  by  the  Synoptic  tradition  (see  on  iii.  24).  This 
adverb  is,  therefore,  authentic,  notwithstanding  the  numerous  MSS.  and 
critics  that  omit  it  or  reject  it. 

Yv.  4.  5.  ''  Now  he  must  needs  pass  through  Samaria.  He  comeih  thus  to  a 
city  of  Samaria  culled  Sychar,1  near  to  the  parcel  of  ground  which  Jacob  gave 
to  hit  son  Joseph."  'Bdu,  it  una  necessary  :  if  one  would  not,  like  the  very 
strict  Jews,  purpose]}'  avoid  this  polluted  country  (comp.  p.  416) ;  Jesus 
did  not  share  this  particularistic  spirit.  The  name  Sychar  is  surprising; 
for  the  only  city  known  in  this  locality  is  that  which  bears  the  name  of 
Shechem,  and  which  is  80  frequently  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament.  Can 
there  be  an  error  here  of  a  writer  who  was  a  stranger  to  Palestine,  as  the 
adversaries  of  the  authenticity  of  our  Gospel  claim?  We  think  the  solu- 
tions scarcely  probable  which  make  the  name  Sychar  a  popular  and  in- 
tentional corruption  of  that  of  Shechem.  deriving  it  either  from  Sebiker, 
falsehood  (city  of  falsehood,  that  is  to  say,  of  heathenism),  or  from  Sch6- 
kar,  liquor  (city  of  drunkards  ;  comp.  Is.  xxviii.  1,  the  drunkards  of  Ephraim). 
We  might  rather  hold  an  involuntary  transformation  through  an  inter- 
change of  liquid  letters  which  was  frequent  (as  e.  g.  that  of  bar  for  ben, 
son).  But  the  most  natural  solution  is  that  which  is  offered  by  the 
passages  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome,  in  which  two  neighboring  localities 
bearing  these  two  distinct  names  are  positively  distinguished.  Euse- 
bius says  in  the  Onomasticon :  u  Sychar  before  Xeapolis."  Neapolis,  in- 
deed, is  nothing  else  then  the  modern  name  of  Shechem.  The  Talmud 
speaks  also  of  a  locality  called  Souhar,  of  a  spring  Soukar,  of  the  plain  of 
Soukar.  At  the  present  day  also,  a  hamlet  exists  very  near  Jacob's  well 
and  situated  at  the  foot  of  Mount  Ebal,  which  bears  the  name  El-Ascar,  a 
name  which  very  much  resembles  the  one  which  we  read  in  John  and  in 
the  Talmud.  Lieut.  Condor  and  M.  Socin 2  also  give  their  assent  to  this 
view.  It  seems  certain,  moreover,  that  the  ancient  Shechem  was  situated- 
somewhat  more  to  the  east  than  the  present  city  of  Nablotv.  This  is 
proved  by  the  ruins  which  are  discovered  everywhere  between  Nablous 
and  Jacob's  well  (see  Felix  Bovet,  Voyage  en  Terre-Sainle,  p.  363).  Peter- 
man  n  (art.  Samaria  in  Herzog's  Encyclop.  xiii.  p.  362)  says  :  "  The  emperor 
Vespasian  considerably  enlarged  the  city  on  the  western  side."  In  any 
case,  to  see,  with  Furrer,  in  this  name  Sychar  an  indication  of  the  purely 
ideal  character  of  the  account,  one  must  be  thoroughly  preoccupied  by  a 
preconceived  theory  (Bibellex.,  iii..  p.  875).  It  is  at  Nablous  that  the  rem- 
nant of  the  Samaritan  people  who  are  reduced  to  the  number  of  about 
one  hundred  and  thirty  persons  live  at  the  present  day. 

According  to  de  Wette.  Meyer,  and  others,  the  gift  of  Jacob  to  Joseph, 
mentioned  in  this  fifth  verse,  rests  on  a  false  tradition,  even  arising  from  a 
misunderstanding  of  the  LXX.  Gen.  xlviii.  22,  Jacob  says  to  Joseph  :  "  1 
giv  thee  one  portion  (Schekem).  above  thy  brethren,  which  I  to<)k  from  the. 
Arnorites  with  my  sword  and  my  bow."     As  the  patriarch  has  just  adopted  a.s 

»  All  the  MSS..  with  the  exception  of  eome  *  Zeitschrift  de*  DeuUchen  PaldtlinorVereinM, 

Mnn.,  and  all    the   ancient   Versions   read       I.  Heft.  p.  42. 
2vx<ip  and  not  Xix*?- 


420  FIRST   PART. 

his  own  the  two  children  of  Joseph,  it  is  natural  for  him  to  assign  to  this 
son  one  portion  above  all  his  brethren.  But  the  Hebrew  word  (Schekem) 
which  denotes  a  portion  of  territory  (strictly  shoulder)  is  at  the  same  time 
the  name  of  the  city,  Shechem;  and  it  is  claimed  that  the  LXX.,  taking 
this  word  in  the  geographical  sense  (as  the  name  of  a  city),  gave  rise, 
through  this  false  translation,  to  the  popular  legend  which  we  find  here, 
and  according  to  which  Jacob  left  Shechem  as  a  legacy  to  Joseph.  But  it 
is  incontestable  that  when  Jacob  speaks  "  of  the  portion  of  country  which 
he  had  taken  from  the  Amorites  ivith  his  bow  and  his  sword,"  he  alludes  to 
the  bloody  exploit  of  his  two  sons,  Simeon  and  Levi,  against  the  city  of 
Shechem  (Gen.  xxxiv.  25-27) :  "  Having  taken  their  sword,  they  entered  the 
city  of  Shechem,  and  slew  all  its  inhabitants  and  utterly  spoiled  it."  This  is 
the  only  martial  act  mentioned  in  the  history  of  the  patriarch.  Notwith- 
standing its  reprehensible  character,  Jacob  appropriates  it  to  himself  in 
these  words,  as  a  confirmation  of  the  purchase  which  he  had  himself  pre- 
viously made  (Gen.  xxxiii.  19)  of  a  domain  in  this  district  of  Shechem, 
and  he  sees  therein,  as  it  were,  the  pledge  of  the  future  conquest  of  this 
whole  country  by  his  descendants.  Thus,  then,  by  using  in  order  to  desig- 
nate the  portion  which  he  gives  to  Joseph,  the  word  schekem,  it  is  the  patri- 
arch who  makes  a  play  upon  words,  such  as  is  found  so  frequently  in  the 
Old  Testament;  he  leaves  to  him  a  portion  (Schekem)  which  is  nothing  else 
than  Shechem.  His  sons  so  well  understood  his  thought,  that,  when  their 
descendants  returned  to  Canaan,  their  first  care  was  to  lay  the  bones  of 
Joseph  in  Jacob's  field  near  to  Shechem  (Josh.  xxiv.  32),  then  to  assign,  as 
a  portion,  to  the  larger  of  the  two  tribes  descended  from  Joseph,  that  of 
Ephraim,  the  country  in  which  Shechem  was  located.  The  LXX.  not  being 
able  to  render  the  play  upon  words  in  Greek,  translated  the  word  schekem 
in  the  geographical  sense  ;  for  it  was  the  one  which  had  most  significance. 
There  is  here,  therefore,  neither  a  false  translation  on  their  part,  nor  a 
false  tradition  taken  up  by  the  evangelist. 

Ver.  6.  •"  Jacob's  well  was  there;  Jesus  there/ore,  wearied  by  his  journey,  sat 
thus1  by  the  well;  it  ivas  about  the  sixth  hour."  This  well  still  exists;  for  "  it 
is  probably  the  same  which  is  now  called  Bir-Jakoub "  (Renan,  Vie  de 
Jesus,  p.  243).  It  is  situated  thirty-five  minutes  eastward  of  Nablous, 
precisely  at  the  place  where  the  road  which  follows  the  principal  valley, 
that  of  Mukhna,  from  south  to  north,  turns  suddenly  to  the  west,  to  enter 
the  narrow  valley  of  Shechem,  with  Ebal  on  the  northeast  and  Gerizim 
on  the  southwest.  The  well  is  hollowed  out,  not  in  the  rock,  as  is  com- 
monly said,  but  rather,  according  to  Lieutenant  Anderson,  who  descended 
into  it  in  1866,  in  alluvial  ground ;  the  same  person  has  ascertained  that 
the  sides  are  for  this  reason  lined  with  rude  masonry.  It  is  nine  feet  in 
diameter.  In  March,  1694,  Maundrell  found  the  depth  to  be  one  hundred 
and  five  feet.  In  1843,  according  to  Wilson,  it  was  only  seventy-five  feet, 
owing,  doubtless,  to  the  falling  in  of  the  earth.  Maundrell  found  in  it  fif- 
teen feet  of  water.     So  also  Anderson,  in   May,  1866.    Robinson  and 

*  Ovtw«  (thus),  is  omitted  by  some  Mnn. ;  It»u«.,  and  Syr. 


chap.  iv.  6-9.  421 

Bovet  found  it  dry.  Schubert,  in  the  month  of  April,  was  able  to  drink 
of  its  water.  Tristram,  in  December,  found  only  the  bottom  wet,  while, 
in  February,  he  found  it  full  of  water.  .  At  the  present  day,  it  is  blocked 
up  with  large  stones,  five  or  six  feet  below  the  aperture ;  but  the  real  open- 
ing is  found  several  feet  lower.  A  few  minutes  further  to  the  north, 
towards  the  hamlet  of  Askar,  the  tomb  of  Joseph  is  pointed  out.  Robin- 
son asks  with  what  object  this  gigantic  work  could  have  been  undertaken 
in  a  country  so  abounding  in  springs — as  many  as  eighty  are  counted  in 
Nablous  and  its  environs.  There  is  no  other  answer  to  give  but  that  of 
Hengstenberg :  "  This  work  is  that  of  a  man  who,  a  stranger  in  the  coun- 
try, wished  to  live  independently  of  the  inhabitants  to  whom  the  springs 
belonged,  and  to  leave  a  monument  of  his  right  of  property  in  this  soil  and 
in  this  whole  country.  Thus  the  very  nature  of  this  work  fully  confirms 
the  origin  which  is  assigned  to  it  by  tradition." 

The  caravan,  leaving  the  great  plain  which  stretches  towards  the  north, 
directed  its  course  to  the  left,  in  order  to  enter  the  valley  of  Shechem. 
There  Jesus  seated  Himself  near  the  well,  leaving  His  disciples  to  con- 
tinue their  journey  as  far  as  Sychar,  where  they  were  to  procure  provis- 
ions. He  was  oppressed  by  fatigue,  KEKoiziaauQ  {wearied),  says  the  evan- 
gelist; and  the  Tubingen  school  ascribes  to  John  the  opinion  of  the  Do- 
cetge,  according  to  which  the  body  of  Jesus  was  only  an  appearance ! 
OuTur(thus),  is  almost  untranslatable  in  our  language ;  it  is  doubtless  for  some 
such  reason  that  it  is  omitted  in  the  Latin  and  Syriac  versions.  It  signifies  : 
without  further  preparation  ;  taking  things  as  He  found  them.  According  to 
the  meaning  given  by  Erasmus,  Beza,  etc., "  wearied  asHe  was,"  the  adverb 
would  rather  have  been  placed  before  the  verb ;  comp.Acts.xx.il;  xxvii.  17 
{Meyer).  The  imperfect  {£  Katie  &to),  is  descriptive;  it  does  not  mean  :  Heseated 
Himself,  but:  He  was  seated;  (comp.  xi.  20;  xx.  12;  Luke  ii.  46,  etc.).  The 
word  refers  not  to  what  precedes,  but  to  what  follows.  "  He  was  there 
seated  when  a  woman  came  ..."  The  sixth  hour  must  denote  mid-day, 
according  to  the  mode  of  reckoning  generally  received  at  that  time  in  the 
East  (see  at  i.  40).  This  hour  of  the  clay  suits  the  context  better  than  six 
o'clock  in  the  morning  or  evening.  Jesus  was  oppressed  at  once  by  the 
journey  and  the  heat.  The  first  part  of  the  conversation  extends  as  far 
as  ver.  15 ;  it  is  immediately  connected  with  the  situation  which  is  given. 

Vv.  7-9.  "  A  woman  of  Samaria  comes  to  draw  ivater.  Jesus  says  to  her : 
Give  vie  to  drink.  8.  For  his  disciples  had  gone  to  the  city  to  buy  food.  9.  The 
Samaritan  ivoman  therefore  says  to  him :  How  is  it  that  thou,  being  a  Jew,  dost 
ask  drink  of  me  ivlw  am  a  Samaritan  woman.  {For  the  Jews  have  no  dealings 
with  the  Samaritans."1)  How  was  it  that  this  woman  came  so  far  to  seek 
water,  and  at  such  an  hour?  She  had  undoubtedly  been  working  in  the 
fields,  and  was  coming  to  draw  water  on  her  return  to  her  home  at  the 
hour  of  dinner  (sec  at  ver.  15).  It  has  been  thought  that  this  feature  suits 
an  evening  hour  better,  since  that  is  ordinarily  the  hour  when  the  women 
go  to  the  well.  But  in  that  case  this  woman  would  undoubtedly  not  have 
been  found  here  alone  {Meyer,  Weiss). 

1  This  parenthesis  is  wholly  omitted  by  N. 


422  FIEST  PAET. 

The  objective  phrase  :  of  Samaria,  depends  on  the  word  woman,  and  not 
on  the  verb  comes;  for,  in  the  latter  case,  Samaria  would  mean  the  city  of 
that  name;  an  impossible  meaning,  since  that  city  was  situated  three 
leagues  to  the  northeast.  The  request  of  Jesus  must  be  understood  in 
the  most  simple  sense,  and  regarded  as  serious.  There  is  no  allegory  in 
it ;  He  is  really  thirsty  ;  this  follows  from  the  word  wearied.  But  this  does 
not  prevent  Him,  in  beginning  a  conversation  with  the  woman,  from 
obeying  another  necessity  than  that  of  thirst — namely,  of  saving  (vv.  32, 
34).  He  is  not  unaware  that  the  way  to  gain  a  soul  is  often  to  ask  a  ser- 
vice of  it;  there  is  thus  conceded  to  it  a  kind  of  superiority  which  flatters 
it.  "The  effect  of  this  little  word  was  great;  it  began  to  overturn  the 
wall  which  had  for  ages  separated  the  two  peoples,"  says  Lange.  The  re- 
mark of  ver.  8  is  intended  to  explain  that,  if  the  disciples  had  been  pres- 
ent, they  would  have  had  a  vessel,  an  avrlrma,  to  let  down  into  the  well. 
Indeed,  in  the  East,  every  caravan  is  provided  with  a  bucket  for  draw- 
ing from  the  wells  which  appear  on  the  road  (see  ver.  11).  This  explana- 
tion given  by  the  evangelist,  proves  the  complete  reality,  in  his  view,  of 
the  need  which  called  forth  the  request  of  Jesus.  There  is  no  longer  here 
anything  of  docetism!  Does  the  expression,  the  disciples,  denote  all  the 
disciples  without  exception?  Might  not  one  of  them,  John,  for  example, 
have  remained  with  Jesus  ?  It  would  be  strange  enough  that  Jesus  should 
have  been  left  there,  absolutely  alone,  in  the  midst  of  a  hostile  population  ; 
and  twelve  men  were  not  necessary  to  procure  provisions !  Meyer's  prud- 
ery is  offended  at  such  a  simple  supposition,  and  Reuss  goes  so  far  as  to 
say:  "The  luminous  idea  has  been  formed  of  leaving  John  at  the  place  to 
take  notes." — The  Jewish  doctors  said  :  "  He  who  eats  bread  with  a  Samar- 
itan is  as  he  who  eats  swine's  flesh."  This  prohibition,  however,  was  not 
absolute ;  it  did  not  apply  either  to  fruits  or  to  vegetables.  As  to  corn  and 
wine,  we  are  ignorant.  Uncooked  eggs  were  allowed ;  whether  cooked, 
was  a  question  (Hausrath,  Neutest.  Zeifgesch.,  I.,  p.  22).  It  is  proved, 
however,  that  the  most  strict  Rabbinical  regulations  belong  to  a  later 
epoch. 

How  did  the  Samaritan  woman  recognize  Jesus  as  a  Jew.  By  His  dress 
or  His  accent  ?  Stier  has  observed  that  in  some  words  which  Jesus  had 
just  spoken  the  letter  2/  occurred,  which,  according  to  Judg.  xii.  6,  distin- 
guished the  two  pronunciations,  the  Jewish  (sch),  and  the  Samaritan  (s) ; 
rimy1?  "jn  (teni  lischechoth  ;  Samaritan:  lisechoth). — The  last  wrords  (oh  yap 
avyxpuvrai)  are  a  remark  of  the  evangelist,  with  a  viewr  to  his  Gentile 
readers  who  might  be  unacquainted  with  the  origin  of  the  Samaritan 
people  (2  Kings  xvii.  24  ff.).  It  was  a  mixture  of  five  nations  transported 
from  the  East  by  Esarhaddon  to  re-people  the  kingdom  of  Samaria,  the 
inhabitants  of  which  his  predecessor  had  removed.  To  the  worship  of 
their  national  gods,  they  united  that  of  the  divinity  of  the  country,  Jeho- 
vah. After  the  return  from  the  Babylonish  captivity,  they  offered  the  Jews 
their,  services  for  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple.  Being  rejected,  they  used 
all  their  influence  with  the  kings  of  Persia,  to  hinder  the  re-establishment 
of  the  Jewish  people.    They  built  for  themselves  a  temple  on  Mount  Geri- 


chap.  iv.  10.  423 

rim.  Their  first  priest  was  Manasseh,  a  Jewish  priest  who  had  married  a 
Persian  wife.  They  were  more  detested  by  the  Jews  than  the  Gentiles 
themselves  were.  Samaritan  proselytes  were  not  received.  It  has  been 
thought  that  the  woman,  in  frolicsomeness,  exaggerated  somewhat  the 
consequences  of  the  hostility  between  the  two  peoples,  and  that  in  sub- 
mitting to  Jesus  this  insignificant  question,  she  wished  to  enjoy  for  a 
moment  the  superiority  which  her  position  gave  her.  This  shade  of 
thought  does  not  appear  from  the  text.  The  Samaritan  woman  naively 
expresses  her  surprise. 

Ver.  10.  "  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  her:  If  thou  knewest  the  gift  of  God 
and  ivho  it  is  who  says  unto  thee :  Give  me  to  drink,  thou  woiddst  have  asked 
of  him  thyself,  and  he  would  have  given  thee  living  water."  To  this  observation 
of  the  woman  Jesus  replies,  not  by  renewing  His  request,  but  by  making 
her  an  offer  by  means  of  which  He  reassumes  His  position  of  superiority. 
To  this  end,  it  is  enough  to  raise  this  woman's  thoughts  to  the  spiritual 
sphere,  where  there  is  no  more  anything  for  Him  but  to  give,  and  for  her 
but  to  receive.  The  expression  :  The  gift  of  God,  may  be  regarded  as  an 
abstract  notion,  whose  concrete  reality  is  indicated  by  the  following  words  : 
who  it  is  that  says  to  thee  (so  in  our  first  edition).  The  words  of  Jesus  in 
iii.  1G  :  "  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  lie  gave  his  only-begotten  Son,"  favor  this 
sense,  according  to  which  Jesus  is  Himself  the  gift  of  God.  But  as  Jesus 
distinguishes  Himself  from  the  living  water,  in  the  following  words,  it  is 
better  to  see  in  the  words :  He  who  says  to  thee,  the  agent  through  whom 
God  makes  this  gift  to  the  human  soul.  God  gives  Jesus  to  the  world,  and 
Jesus  gives  to  it  the  living  water.  Living  water,  in  the  literal  sense,  denotes 
spring-water,  in  contrast  with  water  of  a  cistern,  or  stagnant  water.  Gen. 
xxvi.  19  :  "  Israels  servants  dug  in  the  valley,  and  found  there  a  well  of  living 
water,"  that  is,  a  subterranean  spring  of  which  they  made  a  well ;  comp. 
Levit.  xiv.  5.  In  the  figurative  sense,  living  water  is,  therefore,  a  blessing 
which  has  the  property  of  incessantly  reproducing  itself,  like  a  gushing 
spring,  like  life  itself,  and  which  consequently  is  never  exhausted.  What 
does  Jesus  mean  by  this?  According  to  Justin  and  Cyprian,  baptism; 
according  to  Liieke,  faith;  according  to  Olshausen,  Jesus  Himself;  accord- 
ing to  Calvin,  Luthardt,  Keif,  the  Holy  Spirit;  according  to  Grotius,  the 
evangelical  doctrine;  according  to  Meyer,  truth;  according  to  Tholuck, 
Weiss,  the  word  of  salvation  ;  according  to  Westcott,  eternal  life,  consisting 
in  the  knowledge  of  God  and  of  His  Son  Jesus  Christ  (xvii.  3) ;  this  scholar 
cites  as  analogous  the  Rabbinical  proverb  :  "  When  the  prophets  speak  of 
water,  they  mean  the  law."  Lange,  according  to  ver.  14:  The  interior 
life,  especially  with  reference  to  peace  in  the  heart.  It  seems  to  me  that, 
according  to  Jesus  Himself  (vv.  13,  14),  it  is,  as  Westcott  thinks,  eternal 
life,  salvation,  the  full  satisfaction  of  all  the  wants  of  the  heart  and  the 
possession  of  all  the  holy  energies  of  which  the  soul  is  susceptible.  This 
state  of  soundness  of  the  soul  can  only  be  the  result  of  the  dwelling  of 
Jesus  Himself  in  the  heart,  by  means  of  His  word  made  inwardly  living 
by  the  Holy  Spirit  (chaps,  xiv.-xvi.).  This  explanation  includes,  therefore, 
all  the  others  up  to  a  certain  point. 


424  FIRST  PART. 

Vv.  11,  12.  "  The  ivonian1  says  to  him:  Sir,  thou  hast  nothing  to  draw  with, 
and  the  ivell  is  deep;  from  whence,  then,2  hast  thou  that  living  water?  12.  Art 
thou  greater  than  our  father  Jacob,  ivho  gave  us  the  well,  and  ivho  drank  of  it 
himself,  as  well  as  his  sons  and  his  cattle  f  "  The  Samaritan  woman  takes  the 
expression  living  water  in  its  literal  sense.  She  means :  "  Thon  canst  neither 
(oiire)  draw  from  the  well  the  living  water  which  thou  offerest  to  me — for 
thou  hast  no  vessel  to  draw  with — nor  (/cat),  because  of  its  depth,  canst  thou 
reach  by  any  other  means  the  spring  which  feeds  it."  Unable  to  sup- 
pose that  He  is  speaking  spiritually,  she  cannot  understand  that  He  offers 
her  what  He  has  Himself  asked  from  her  {Westcott).  The  term  icvpie,  Sir, 
expresses,  however,  profound  respect.  She  calls  Jacob  our  father,  because 
the  Samaritans  claimed  descent  from  Ephraim  and  Manasseh  (Joseph. 
Antiqq.  ix.  14,  3).  Opefi/uara :  servants  and  cattle,  everything  requiring  to 
be  supported.  It  is  the  complete  picture  of  patriarchal  nomad  life  which 
appears  here. 

Vv.  13.  14.  "Jesus  ansivered  and  said  to  her:  Whoever  drinks  of  this  water 
shall  thirst  again;  but  he  that  shall  drink3  of  the  water  that  I  shall  give  him, 
shall  never  thirst;  but  the  water  that  I*  shall  give  him*  shall  become  in  him  a 
fountain  of  water  springing  tip  unto  eternal  life."  It  is  to  no  purpose  that 
the  water  of  the  well  is  spring-water ;  it  is  not  that  which  Jesus  means  by 
living  water ;  it  has  not  the  power  of  reproducing  itself  in  him  who  drinks 
it;  so,  after  a  certain  time,  the  want  revives  and  the  torment  of  thirst 
makes  itself  felt.  "A  beautiful  inscription,"  says  Stier,  "  to  be  placed  upon 
fountains."  Such  water  presents  itself  to  the  thought  of  Jesus  as  the 
emblem  of  all  earthly  satisfactions,  after  which  the  want  reappears  in  the 
soul  and  puts  it  again  in  dependence  upon  external  objects  in  order  to  its 
satisfaction. 

Jesus  defines  in  ver.  14  the  nature  of  the  true  living  water;  it  is  that 
which,  reproducing  itself  within  by  its  own  potentiality,  quenches  the 
soul's  want  as  it  arises,  so  that  the  heart  cannot  suffer  a  single  moment 
of  inward  torment  of  thirst.  Man  possesses  in  himself  a  satisfaction  inde- 
pendent of  earthly  objects  and  conditions.— 'Eyw  ;  yes,  I,  (in  opposition  to 
Jacob). — With  Reuss,  I  formerly  referred  the  words  elg  ruijv  aluviov,  unto 
eternal  life,  not  to  time,  but  to  the  effect  produced,  to  the  mode  of  appear- 
ance :  in  the  form  of  eternal  life.  The  parallel  term,  however,  eig  rbv 
aluva  for  ever,  favors  rather  the  temporal  sense,  "  even  to  the  life  without 
end.'" 

Ver.  15.  "  The  woman  says  to  him  :  Sir,  give  me  this  water,  that  I  may  not 
thirst,  neither  pass  this  way 5  to  draw." — This  woman's  request  has  certainly  a 
serious  side.  The  respectful  address,  Sir,  is  sufficient  to  prove  this.  It  fol- 
lows likewise  from  the  grave  character  of  the  answer  of  Jesus.  Even 
though  the  absence  of  spiritual  wants  causes  her  not  to  understand,  she  is 

lfi  rejects  ij  yvvr/.    tf  reads  exeivri.  same  word. 

*K  D  Syr.,  omit  oi/v.  6  Instead  of  epxo;u<u  or  epx<anai,  between 

3{<  I)  read  o  5e  nivutv,  instead  of  o?  $'  av  wi>).  which  the  other  three   Mjj.  are   divided,  X 

4N  U  M,  some  Mnn.,  and  It.,  read  eya>  be-  reads  Siepxui/uou,  B  £iepxo/iai. 
fore  Suhtw.    H,  rejects  avno  which  follows  this 


chap.  iv.  11-18.  425 

impressed ;  can  this  man  indeed  have  the  powor  of  working  such  a  miracle? 
Nevertheless,  the  expression  of  the  desire  which  she  experiences  to  have  her 
life  made  more  comfortable  has  in  it  something  naive  and  almost  humorous. 
— The  last  words  reproduce  the  promise  of  Jesus :  "  shall  not  thirst." 
The  reading  of  the  two  oldest  MSS. :  "  that  I  pass  no  more  this  way," 
instead  of :  that  I  come  hither  no  more,  should  undoubtedly  be  adopted. 
No  one  would  have  substituted  this  for  the  received  reading.  It  confirms 
the  idea  that  we  have  expressed :  namely,  that  the  woman  was  merely 
passing  that  way,  as  she  returned  to  her  house. 

The  first  phase  of  the  conversation  is  closed.  But  Jesus  has  raised  a 
sublime  ideal  in  this  woman's  imagination — that  of  eternal  life.  Could  he 
abandon  her  before  having  taught  her  more  on  this  subject,  since  she  had 
thus  far  shown  herself  teachable. 

Vv.  16-18.  "  Jesus  says  to  her:  Go,  call  thy  husband,  and  come  hither.  17. 
The  woman  answered  and  said :  I  have  no  husband.  Jesus  says  to  her :  Thou 
hast  well  said :  I  have l  no  husband.  18.  For  thou  hast  had  five 2  husbands,  and 
he  whom  thou  now  hast  is  not  thy  husband.  In  this  thou  hast  said  truly." 3 — 
Westcott  observes  that  the  natural  transition  to  this  invitation,  which  is 
apparently  so  abrupt,  is  perhaps  to  be  found  in  the  last  words  of  the 
woman  :  "that  I  pass  no  more  this  way  to  draw,"  which  suggest  persons  of 
her  family  for  whom  she  is  performing  this  duty. — Must  we  seek  the 
object  of  this  request  in  the  moral  effect  which  it  should  produce  on  the 
woman,  by  giving  Jesus  the  opportunity  to  prove  to  her  his  prophetic 
knowledge  {Meyer,  Iieuss,  etc.)  ?  Certainly  not,  for  there  would  then  be  a 
miracle  of  exhibition,  which  would  not  be  in  harmony  with  the  ordinary 
simplicity  of  Jesus.  The  invitation  must  be  its  own  justification.  Others 
think  that  Jesus  proposed  to  Himself  to  awaken  in  this  woman  the  sense 
of  her  life  of  sin  [Tholuck,  Luthardt,  Bonnet,  Weiss,  etc.).  But  under  this 
form  of  supposition  also,  the  means  used  have  something  of  indirectness," 
which  does  not  seem  to  be  in  entire  conformity  with  the  perfect  sincerity 
of  the  Lord.  The  true  reason  of  it  seems  to  me  rather  to  be  this:  Jesus 
did  not  wish  to  act  upon  a  dependent  person  without  the  participation  of 
the  one  to  whom  she  was  bound,  and  the  more  because  the  summoning 
of  the  latter  might  be  the  means  of  extending  His  work.  Meyer  makes  the 
nature  of  the  relation  which  united  them  an  objection.  But  the  arrival 
of  this  woman,  at  so  unusual  an  hour,  had  undoubtedly  been  for  Jesus  the 
signal  of  a  work  to  be  done ;  and  there  is  nothing  to  show  that,  when 
addressing  this  invitation  to  the  woman,  Jesus  had  her  antecedents  already 
present  to  His  mind.  Might  not  the  term,  thy  husband,  indeed,  be  com- 
pletely justified  by  this  supposition  ?  The  prophetic  insight  may  not  have 
been  awakened  in  Him  till  He  heard  the  answer  which  struck  Him  :  "/ 
have  no  husband :  " — She  had  been  married  five  times ;  and  now,  after  these 
five  lawful  unions,  she  was  living  in  an  illicit  relation.  The  fact  that  she 
did  not  venture  to  call  the  man  with  whom  she  is  living  her  husbayid, 
shows  in  this  woman  a  certain  element  of  right  character. 

1  X  nM*. ;  Ileraolfion :  e^ei?  (that  thou  hast  2  Heracleon  :  <f  (six)  instead  of  irtvrt  (five), 

not)  instead  of  e^w  (I  have  not).  3N  E:  oAqdwt  instead  of  oA>)fles. 


426  FIRST   PART. 

The  reply  of  Jesus  is  not  free  from  irony.  The  partial  assent  which 
He  gives  to  the  woman's  answer,  has  something  sarcastic  in  it.  The 
same  is  true  of  the  contrast  which  Jesus  brings  out  between  the  number  five 
and  the  :  "  I  have  no  !  " — The  emphatic  position  of  the  pronoun  aov  before 
avijp  implies,  perhaps,  the  following  understood  antithesis:  "Not  thine 
own,  but  tlie  husband  of  another."  From  this  it  would  follow  that  she  had 
lived  in  adultery.  It  is  not  absolutely  necessary,  However,  to  press  so  far 
the  meaning  of  this  construction. — Modern  criticism,  since  the  time  of 
Strauss  (see  especially  Keim  and  Hausrath),  connects  this  part  of  the  con- 
versation with  the  fact  that  the  Samaritan  nation  was  formed  of  five 
eastern  tribes  which,  after  having  each  brought  its  own  God,  had  adopted, 
besides,  Jehovah,  the  God  of  the  country  (2  Kings  xvii.  30,  31).  The 
woman  with  her  five  husbands  and  the  man  with  whom  she  was  now  liv- 
ing as  the  sixth,  are,  it  is  said,  the  symbol  of  the  whole  Samaritan  people, 
and  we  have  here  a  proof  of  the  ideal  character  of  this  story.  The  view 
rests  especially  on  this  statement  of  Josephus  (Antiq.  ix.  14,  3) :  "  Five 
nations  having  brought  each  its  own  God  to  Samaria."  But  1,  in  the  O.  T. 
passage  (2  Kings  xvii.  30,  31),  there  is,  indeed,  a  question  of  five  peoples, 
but,  at  the  same  time,  of  seven  gods,  two  peoples  having  introduced  two 
gods.  2.  These  seven  gods  were  all  worshiped  simultaneously,  and  not 
successively,  up  to  the  moment  when  they  gave  place  to  Jehovah ;  a  fact 
which  destroys  the  correspondence  between  the  situations.  3.  Is  it 
conceivable  that  Jehovah  would  be  compared  to  the  sixth  husband,  who 
was  evidently  the  worst  of  all  in  the  woman's  life?  If  the  reading  six  of 
Heracleon,  has  reference  to  the  ancient  Samaritan  religion,  it  does  not 
refer  to  the  addition  of  Jehovah  to  the  other  five  gods,  but  rather  to  2 
Kings  xvii.  30,  where  there  is  an  allusion  to  six  or  seven  gods  brought  in 
by  the  Eastern  Gentiles. 

Vv.  19,  20.  "  The  woman  says  to  him :  Sir,  I  see  that  thou  art  a  prophet. 
20.  Our  fathers  worshiped  in  this  mountain;1  and  you  say  that  in  Jerusalem 
is  the  place  *  where  men  ought  to  worship."  Some  see  in  this  question  of  the 
woman  only  an  attempt  to  turn  aside  the  disturbance  of  her  conscience, 
"  a  woman's  ruse  "  (ile  Wette)  with  the  design  of  escaping  from  a  painful 
subject.  "  She  diverts  attention  from  her  own  life  by  proposing  a  point 
of  controversy  "  (Astie).  But  would  Jesus  reply,  as  He  does,  to  a  question 
proposed  in  such  a  spirit  ?  Besser  and  Luthardt  go  to  the  opposite  extreme : 
This  question  is,  in  their  view,,  the  indication  of  a  tortured  conscience, 
which,  sighing  for' pardon,  desires  to  know  the  true  sanctuary  to  which  it 
can  go  to  make  expiation  for  its  faults.  This  is  still  more  forced.  Reuss, 
with  an  irony  which  assails  the  evangelist  himself,  says  :  "  If  she  asks  the 
question  thus,  it  is  only  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  out  the  declaration  of 
the  Lord  which  we  are  about  to  read."  Westcott  says  rightly  :  "  Here  is 
the  very  natural  inquiry  of  a  soul  which  finds  itself  face  to  face  with  an 
interpreter  of  the  divine  will."    This  woman  has  recognized  in  Jesus  a 

1  All  the  Mjj. :    ev  tu  opet  tovtw,  instead  of  2  K  omits  o  tojtos. 

t v  toutw  tu  opei  which  T.  R.  reads  with  Mnn. 


chap.  iv.  19-21.  427 

prophet ;  she  has  at  the  same  time  found  in  Him  largeness  of  heart.  The 
two  answers,  vv.  17,  19,  have  proved  that,  notwithstanding  her  faults,  she 
is  not  altogether  wanting  in  right  character.  It  follows  even  from  ver.  25 
that  religious  thoughts  are  not  strange  to  her,  that  she  is  looking  for  the 
Messiah  and  that  she  waits  to  receive  from  Him  the  explanation  of  the 
questions  which  embarrass  her.  The  fact  of  a  Jewish  prophet,  present 
before  her  eyes,  inspires  her  with  doubts  as  to  the  religious  claim  of  her 
nation.  Is  it  not  an  altogether  simple  thing,  that,  in  her  present  situation, 
after  her  conscience  has  been  so  profoundly  moved,  her  thoughts  should 
turn  to  the  great  religious  question  which  separates  the  two  peoples,  and 
that  she  should  ask  the  solution  of  it?  It  is  an  anticipation  of  the  more 
complete  teaching  which  she  expects  from  the  Messiah.  By  the  term : 
our  fathers,  she  perhaps  understands  the  Israelites  of  the  time  of  Joshua, 
who,  according  to  the  reading  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  (Deut.  xxvii. 
4),  raised  their  altar  on  Mount  Gerizim,  and  not  on  Ebal ;  in  any  case,  she 
understands  by  this  expression  all  the  Samaritan  ancestors  who  had  wor- 
shiped on  Gerizim,  from  the  period  when  a  temple  was  built  there  in 
Nehemiah's  time.  This  temple  had  been  destroyed  by  John  Hyrcanus 
one  hundred  and  twenty-nine  years  before  Christ.  But  even  after  this 
event,  the  place  had  remained  a  sacred  spot  Deut.  xi.  29,  as  it  still  is  at  the 
present  day.  It  is  there  that  the  Samaritans  even  now  celebrate  the  feast 
of  the  Passover  every  year.  Jerusalem  not  being  named  anywhere  in  the 
law,  the  preference  of  the  Samaritans  for  Gerizim  found  plausible  reasons 
in  the  patriarchal  history.  The  superiority  of  the  Jewish  sanctuary  could 
be  justified  only  from  the  standpoint  of  the  later  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. But  we  know  that  the  Samaritans  admitted  only  the  Pentateuch 
and  the  Mosaic  institution.  When  she  said:  on  this  mountain,  she 
pointed  to  it  with  the  finger.  For  Jacob's  well  is  situated  directly  at 
the  foot  of  Gerizim.  She  confines  herself  to  setting  forth  the  antithesis, 
thinking  indeed  that  Jesus  will  understand  the  question  which  follows 
from  it. 

Ver.  21.  "  Jesus  says  to  her:  Woman,  believe  me;1  the  hour  cometh  when 
neither  on  this  mountain  nor  at  Jerusalem  shall  ye  worship  the  Father."  The 
position  of  Jesus  is  a  delicate  one.  He  cannot  deny  the  truth,  and  He 
must  not  repel  this  woman.  His  reply  is  admirable.  He  has  just  been 
called  a  prophet,  and  He  prophesies.  Pie  announces  a  new  economy  in 
which  the  Samaritans,  having  become  children  of  God,  will  be  set  free 
from  that  local  sanctuary  which  the  woman  points  out  to  Him  on  the 
summit  of  Gerizim,  but  without  being  compelled  for  this  reason  to  go  to 
Jerusalem.  The  filial  character  of  this  new  worship  will  free  it  from  all 
the  external  limitations  by  which  all  the  old  national  worships  were  bur- 
dened. If  the  privilege  of  Gerizim  passes  away,  it  will  not  be  that  it 
may  be  assigned  to  Jerusalem.  "  You  will  not  bring  the  Jews  hither ;  but 
they  shall  no  more  force  you  to  go  to  them.    You  shall  meet  each  other, 

»  T.  R.  reads  ywai  nurrtwov  jioi  with  14  Mjj.  It»"i.  Syr.  while  KBCDL3  Mnn.  b  Orig.  read 


428  PIEST  PART. 

both  parties  alike,  in  the  great  family  of  the  Father's  worshipers."  What 
treasures  cast  to  such  a  soul !  What  other  desire  than  that  of  doing  His 
Father's  will  could  inspire  in  Jesus  such  condescension! — The  aorist 
iriarevaov  in  the  T.  II.  signifies  :  "  Perform  an  act  of  faith."  We  can  under- 
stand the  prefixing  of  the  apostrophe :  woman,  in  this  reading  which 
makes  such  an  earnest  appeal  to  her  will.  The  present  nioreve  in  the 
Alexandrian  documents  simply  signifies  :  "  Believe  from  this  moment  and 
for  the  future."  Both  the  readings  may  be  sustained.  This  summons  to 
faith  answered  to  this  woman's  profession:  "Thou  art  a  prophet."  The 
subject  you  of  shall  worship  might  denote  the  Samaritans  and  Jews  (Hilgen- 
feld),  or  men  in  general  (so  in  my  2d  ed.),  in  contrast  to  Jesus  Himself  or 
to  Jesus  and  His  own.  But  this  woman  could  not  regard  herself  as  the 
representative  either  of  humanity  in  general,  or  of  the  Samaritans  and 
Jews  together.  The  subject  of  you  shall  worship  must  rather  be  derived 
from  those  words  of  her  question  in  ver.  20 :  Our  fathers  worshiped.  It  is 
the  Samaritans  only. 

Ver.  22.  "  Ye  worship  that  xuhich  ye  do  not  know  ;  we  worship  that  ivhich  we 
know,  because  salvation  comes  from  the  Jews"  The  antithesis,  which  is  so 
clearly  marked  between  ye  and  ive  proves,  whatever  Hilgenfeld  may  say, 
who  wrongly  cites  Hengstenberg  as  being  of  his  opinion  (comp.  the  Com- 
mentary of  the  latter,  I.  pp.  264r-269),  that  the  ye  denotes  the  Samaritans 
and  the  we  Jesus  and  the  Jews.  After  having  put  His  impartiality  beyond 
suspicion  by  the  revelation  of  the  great  future  announced  in  ver.  21,  Jesus 
enters  more  closely  into  the  question  proposed  to  Him  and  decides  it,  as 
related  to  the  past,  in  favor  of  the  Jews.  "  It  is  at  Jerusalem  that  the  liv- 
ing God  has  made  Himself  known ;  and  that  because  it  is  by  means  of  the 
Jews  that  He  intends  to  give  salvation  to  the  world."  God  is  known  only 
so  far  as  He  give's  Himself  to  be  known.  The  seat  of  the  true  knowledge 
of  Him  can,  therefore,  only  be  where  He  makes  His  revelation  ;  and  this 
place  is  Jerusalem.  By  breaking  with  the  course  of  theocratic  develop- 
ment since  the  time  of  Moses,  and  rejecting  the  prophetic  revelations,  the 
Samaritans  had  separated  themselves  from  the  historic  God,  from  the 
living  God.  They  had  preserved  only  the  abstract  idea  of  the  one  God,  a 
purely  rational  monotheism.  Now  the  idea  of  God,  as  soon  as  it  is  taken 
for  God  Himself,  is  no  moi'e  than  a  chimera.  Even  while  worshiping 
God,  therefore,  they  do  not  know  what  they  worship.  The  Jews,  on  the 
contrary,  have  developed  themselves  in  constant  contact  with  the  divine 
manifestations ;  they  have  remained  in  the  school  of  the  God  of  revela- 
tion, and  in  this  living  relation  they  have  preserved  the  principle  of  a  true 
knowledge.  And  whence  comes  this  peculiar  relation  between  this  peo- 
ple and  God  ?  The  answer  is  given  in  what  follows.  If  God  has  made 
Himself  so  specially  known  to  the  Jews,  it  is  because  He  wished  to  make 
use  of  them,  in  order  to  accomplish  the  salvation  of  the  world.  It  is  sal- 
vation which,  retroactively  in  some  sort,  has  produced  all  the  previous 
theocratic  revelations,  as  it  is  the  fruit  which,  although  appearing  at  the 
end  of  the  annual  vegetation,  is  the  real  cause  of  it.  The  true  cause  of 
things  is  their  aim.    Thus  is  the  on,  because,  explained. 


chap.  iv.  22-24.  429 

This  passage  has  embarrassed  rationalistic  criticism,  which,  making  the  Jesus  of 
our  Gospel  an  adversary  of  Judaism,  does  not  allow  that  He  could  have  pro- 
claimed Himself  a  Jew,  and  have  Himself  united  in  this  we  His  own  worship  and 
that  of  the  Israelitish  people.  And  indeed  if,  as  d'Eichthal  alleges  (Les  Evan/jiles 
I.  p.  xxviii.),  the  Jesus  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  "  from  one  end  to  the  other  of  His 
preaching,  seems  to  make  sport  of  the  Jews,"  and  consequently  cannot  "  be  one 
of  them,"  there  is  a  flagrant  contradiction  between  our  passage  and  the  entire 
Gospel.  Hilgenfeld  thinks  that,  at  ver.  21,  Jesus  addresses  the  Jews  and  the  Sa- 
maritans taken  together,  as  by  a  kind  of  prosopopoeia,  and  that  at  ver.  22,  by  the 
words  :  we  worship  that  which  we  know,  he  designates  Himself,  (with  the  believers) 
in  opposition  to  these  Jews  and  Samaritans.  We  have  already  seen  at  ver.  21 
that  this  explanation  cannot  be  sustained,  and  this  appears  more  clearly  still 
from  the  words  of  ver.  22:  "Because  salvation  comes  from  the  Jews,"  which  evi- 
dently prove  that  the  subject  of  "  we  worship  "  can  only  be  the  Jews.  U-Eichtlial 
and  Eenan  make  use  here  of  different  expedients.  The  enigma  is  explained,  says 
the  first,  when  it  is  observed  that  this  expression  is  only  "  the  annotation,  or 
rather  the  protest,  which  a  Jew  of  the  old  school  had  inscribed  on  the  margin  of 
the  text,  and  of  which  an  error  of  the  copyist  has  made  a  word  of  Jesus  "  (p. 
xxix.,  note).  And  this  scholar  is  in  exstacies  over  the  services  which  criticism 
can  render  to  the  interpretation  of  the  sacred  writings !  Kenan  makes  a  similar 
hypothesis.  "  The  22d  verse,  which  expresses  an  opposite  thought  to  that  of  vv. 
21  and  23,  seems  an  awkward  addition  of  the  evangelist  alarmed  at  the  boldness 
of  the  saying  which  he  reports"  (p.  244,  note).  Arbitrariness  could  not  be 
pressed  further.  The  critic  begins  by  decreeing  what  the  fourth  Gospel  must  be ; 
an  anti-Jewish  book.  Then,  when  he  meets  an  expression  which  contradicts  this 
alleged  character,  he  rejects  it  with  a  stroke  of  the  pen.  He  obtains,  thus,  not 
the  Gospel  which  is,  but  that  which  he  would  have.  But  is  it  supposed  that  the 
first  Jew  whom  one  might  meet  was  in  possession  of  the  authentic  copy  of  our 
Gospel,  to  modify  it  according  to  his  fancy  ;  or  that  it  was  very  easy  for  any 
chance  foreigner,  when  this  writing  was  once  spread  abroad,  to  introduce  an  inter-, 
polation  into  all  the  copies  which  were  in  circulation  among  the  Churches?  As 
for  Renan's  hypothesis,  it  supposes  that  the  evangelist  thought  he  knew  more 
than  the  Master  whom  he  worshiped  ;  which  is  not  very  logical.  The  alleged 
incompatibility  of  this  saying  with  vv.  21,  23,  and  with  spirit  of  the  fourth  Gos- 
pel in  general,  is  an  assertion  without  foundation.    (See  Introduction,  p.  127-134.) 

At  ver.  21  Jesus  has  transferred  the  question  to  the  future,  when  the 
localized  worship  of  ancient  times  should  no  longer  exist.  In  ver.  22,  He 
has  justified  the  Jews,  historically  speaking.  At  ver.  23  He  returns  to 
the  future  announced  in  ver.  21,  and  describes  all  its  grandeur. 

Vv.  23,  24.  "  But  the  hour  cometh  and  now  is,  when  the  true  worshipei's 
shall  worship  the  Father  in  spirit  and  in  truth  ;  for  also  the  Father  seeketh 
such  worshipers.  24.  God  is  spirit,  and  they  that  worship  him1  must  worship 
him  in  spirit  and  in  truth."  *  But :  in  contrast  with  the  period  of  Israelit- 
ish prerogative  now  ended.  The  words,  and  now  is,  added  here,  serve  to 
arouse  more  strongly  the  already-awakened  attention  of  the  woman.     It 

'X  D  d  Heraeleon  Orig.  omit  avio^  after  *X  reads:  tv  irvev/jic'Ti aAijdciac  (in  the  spirii 

wpoaKwovvras.  of  truth). 


430  FIRST   PART. 

is  as  if  the  first  breath  of  the  new  era  were  just  passing  across  this  soul. 
Perhaps  Jesus  sees  in  the  distance  His  disciples  returning,  the  represent- 
atives of  this  nation  of  new  worshipers  which  in  a  few  moments  will  be 
recruited  by  the  first-fruits  of  the  Samaritan  people.  He  brings  out  the 
two  characteristics  of  the  future  worship  :  spirituality  and  truth.  Spirit 
denotes  here  the  highest  organ  of  the  human  soul,  by  means  of  which  it 
has  communion  with  the  divine  world.  It  is  the  seat  of  contemplation, 
the  place  of  the  soul's  meeting  with  God,  the  sanctuary  where  the  true 
worship  is  celebrated ;  Rom.  i.  9 :  "  God,  whom  I  serve  in  my  spirit "  (n>  t£> 
■Kvevfiari  [tov) ;  Eph.  vi.  18 :  praying  in  the  spirit  (h  TzvevfiaTi).  This  spirit,  in 
man,  the  nvevna  avdnuizivov,  remains  a  mere  potentiality,  so  long  as  it  is  not 
penetrated  by  the  Divine  Spirit.  But  when  this  union  is  accomplished,  it 
becomes  capable  of  realizing  the  true  worship  of  which  Jesus  speaks. 
This  first  feature  marks  the  intensity  of  the  new  worship.  The  second, 
truth,  is  the  corollary  of  the  first.  The  worship  rendered  in  the  inner 
sanctuary  of  the  spirit  is  the  only  true  worship,  because  it  alone  is  con- 
formed to  the  nature  of  God,  its  object :  "  God  is  spirit."  The  idea  of  sin- 
cerity does  not  fill  out  the  meaning  of  the  word  truth  ;  for  a  Jewish  or 
Samaritan  prayer  might  evidently  be  sincere.  The  truth  of  the  worship 
is  its  inward  character,  in  opposition  to  every  demonstration  without 
spiritual  reality.  Though  these  words  exclude  all  subjection  of  Christian 
worship  to  the  limitations  of  place  or  time,  it  is  nevertheless  true  that  by 
virtue  of  its  very  freedom,  this  worship  can  spontaneously  accept  condi- 
tions of  time  and  place.  But,  as  Mme.  Guyon  says,  the  external  adoration 
is  then  "  only  a  springing  forth  of  the  adoration  of  the  Spirit"  (quoted  by 
Astie).  The  two  defining  words  :  inspirit  and  in  truth  are  formal;  the 
concrete  character  of  the  new  worship  is  expressed  by  the  word  :  the  Fa- 
ther. The  worship  of  which  Jesus  is  speaking  is  the  converse  of  a  son 
with  his  father.  We  know  from  what  source  Jesus  drew  this  definition 
of  spiritual  and  true  worship.  "Abba  {Father)  "  such  was  the  constant 
expression  of  His  inmost  feeling.  By  adding  that  the  Father,  at  this  very 
moment,  is  seeking  such  worshipers,  Jesus  gives  the  woman  an  intimation 
that  He  is  Himself  the  one  sent  by  the  Father  to  form  this  new  people 
and  that  He  invites  her  to  become  one  of  them. 

The  24th  verse  justifies,  from  the  essential  nature  of  God,  what  He  has 
just  said  of  the  spiritual  and  true  nature  of  the  worship  now  demanded 
by  God  Himself.  Jesus  does  not  give  the  maxim  "  God  is  spirit "  as  a 
new  revelation.  -It  is  like  an  axiom  from  which  He  starts,  a  premise  admit- 
ted by  His  interlocutor  herself.  The  Old  Testament  taught,  indeed,  the 
spirituality  of  God  in  all  its  sublimity  (1  Kings  viii.  27),  and  the  Samari- 
tans certainly  held  it,  like  the  Jews  (see  Gesenius,  de  Samarit.  theol.  p.- 12, 
and  Lilcke).  What  is  new  in  this  saying  is  not  the  truth  affirmed,  but  the 
consequence  which  Jesus  draws  from  it  with  reference  to  the  worship  which 
was  to  come.  He  calls  forth  from  it  the  idea  of  the  people  of  the  chil- 
dren of  God<  offering  throughout  the  whole  world  constant  adoration ; 
comp.  Mai.  i.  11.  Thus  to  a  guilty  woman,  perhaps  an  adulteress,  Jesus 
reveals  truths  which  He  had  probably  never  unfolded  to  His  own  disci- 


chap.  iv.  25,  26.  431 

pies. — The  reading  of  the  Sinaitic  MS.  h  ■n-vev/uarc  alrjdtias,  in  the  spirit  of 
truth,  is  derived  from  xiv.  17 ;  xv.  26,  etc.,  and  arises  from  the  false  appli- 
cation of  the  word  nvevfia  to  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Ver.  25.  "  The  woman  says  to  him,  I  know  l  that  Messiah  cometh  (he  who 
is  allied  Christ);  when  he  is  come,  he  will  declare  unto  us'2  all  things."3  The 
woman's  answer  bears  witness  of  a  certain  desire  for  light.  Her  Spirt 
yearns  for  the  perfect  revelation.  This  is  the  reason  why  we  were  no* 
wrong  in  interpreting  vv.  15,  20  in  a  sense  favorable  to  her  character.  Ac- 
cording to  modern  accounts,  the  Samaritans  actually  expect  a  Messiah,  to 
whom  they  give  the  name  A ssaef  (from  2W,  to  return)  ;  this  word  signifies, 
according  to  Gesenius,  he  who  brings  back,  who  converts;  according  to  de 
Sacy  and  Hengstenberg,  he  ivho  returns,  in  the  sense  that,  as  the  expectation 
of  the  Samaritans  was  founded  on  Deut.  xviii.  18 :  "  God  ivill  raise  up  for 
you  another  prophet  from  among  your  brethren,  like  unto  me,"  the  Messiah  to 
their  view  is  a  Moses  who  returns.  At  the  present  day,  they  call  him  el- 
Muhdy.  There  is  a  striking  contrast  between  the  notion  of  the  Messiah, 
as  it  is  expressed  by  the  mouth  of  this  woman,  and  the  earthly  and  polit- 
ical notions  on  this  subject  which  Jesus  encountered  in  Israel.  The  Sa- 
maritan idea  was  imperfect,  no  doubt;  the  Messiah  was  a  prophet,  not  a 
king.  But  it  contained  nothing  false  ;  and  for  this  reason  Jesus  is  able  to 
appropriate  it  to  Himself,  and  here  declare  Himself  the  Christ,  which  He 
did  in  Israel  only  at  the  last  moment  (xvii.  3  ;  Matt.  xxvi.  64).  The  trans- 
lation 6  "ksyofiEvog  Xpiarog,  who  is  called  Christ,  belongs  to  the  evangelist.  He 
repeats  this  explanation,  already  given  in  i.  42,  unquestionably  because  of 
the  complete  strangeness  of  this  word  Meaaiac  to  Greek  readers.  It  has 
been  said  that  the  Jewish  term  Messiah  could  not  have  been  ascribed  by 
John  to  this  foreign  woman.  But  this  popular  name  might  easily  have 
passed  from  the  Jews  to  the  Samaritans,  especially  in  the  region  of  She- 
chem,  which  was  inhabited  by  Jewish  fugitives  (Joseph.  Antiq.  xi.  8.  6).  ■ 
Perhaps,  the  very  absence  of  the  article  before  the  word  Meaaiag,  indicates 
that  the  woman  uses  this  word  as  a  proper  name,  as  is  done  in  the  case 
of  foreign  words  (comp.  i.  42).  The  word  ipxerai  (comes)  is  an  echo  of  the 
two  Ipxerai  of  vv.  21,  23 ;  she  surrenders  herself  to  the  impulse  towards 
the  new  era  which  Jesus  has  impressed  on  her  soul.  The  pronoun 
EKElvog,  he,  has,  as  ordinarily  with  John,  an  exclusive  sense  ;  it  serves  to  place 
this  revealer  in  contrast  with  all  others  ;  to  that  very  one  whom  she  had 
before  her.  The  preposition  in  the  verb  avayyelel  marks  the  perfect  clear- 
ness, and  the  object,  rravra  or  anavra,  the  complete  character  of  the  Mes- 
siah's expected  revelation. 

Ver.  26.  "Jesus  says  to  her:  I  who  speak  unto  thee  am  he."  Jesus,  not 
having  to  fear,  as  we  have  just  seen,  that  he  would  call  forth  in  this  woman 
a  whole  world  of  dangerous  illusions,  like  those  which,  among  the  Jews, 
were  connected  with  the  name  of  Messiah,  reveals  Himself  fully  to  her. 
This  conduct  is  not  therefore,  as  de  Wette  claims,  in  contradiction  with 

IGLA  some  Mnn.  Hyr.  read  oi&antv  (we  avayyekit.  (the  present  instead  of  the  future). 
know).  3H  B  0  Grig,  (four  times)  read  anavra.  in- 

>KD  (but  not  d)  read  avayytMti  instead  of       stead  of  iracra. 


432  FIRST   PART. 

such  words  as  Matt.  viii.  4;  xvi.  20,  etc.     The  difference  in  the  soil  ex- 
plains the  difference  in  the  seed  which  the  hand  of  Jesus  deposits  in  it. 

How  can  we  describe  the  astonishment  which  such  a  declaration  must 
have  produced  in  this  woman  ?  It  expresses  itself,  better  than  by  words, 
in  her  silence  and  her  conduct  (ver.  28).  She  had  arrived,  a  few  minutes 
before,  careless  and  given  up  to  earthly  thoughts ;  and  lo,  in  a  few  mo- 
ments, she  is  brought  to  a  new  faith,  and  even  transformed  into  an  earnest 
missionary  of  that  faith.  How  did  the  Lord  thus  raise  up  and  elevate 
this  soul  ?  When  speaking  with  Mcodemus,  He  started  from  the  idea 
which  filled  the  heart  of  every  Pharisee — that  of  the  kingdom  of  God, 
and  he  drew  from  it  the  most  rigorous  moral  consequences ;  for  He  knew 
that  He  was  addressing  a  man  accustomed  to  the  discipline  of  the  law. 
Then,  He  unfolded  to  him  the  truths  of  the  divine  kingdom,  by  connect- 
ing them  with  a  striking  Old  Testament  type  and  putting  them  in  contrast 
with  the  corresponding  features  of  the  Pharisaic  programme.  Here,  on 
the  contrary,  conversing  with  a  woman  destitute  of  all  Scriptural  prepara- 
tion, He  takes  His  point  of  departure  from  the  commonest  of  things,  the 
water  of  this  well.  Then,  by  a  bold  antithesis,  He  wakens  in  her  mind 
the  thought,  in  her  heart  the  want,  of  a  supernatural  gift  which  may  for- 
ever quench  the  heart's  thirst.  The  aspiration  for  salvation  once  awak- 
ened becomes  in  her  an  inward  prophecy  to  which  He  attaches  His  new 
revelations.  By  the  teaching  with  reference  to  the  true  worship,  He  re- 
sponds to  the  religious  prepossessions  of  this  woman,  as  directly  as  by  the 
revelation  of  the  heavenly  things  He  had  responded  to  the  inmost 
thoughts  of  Nicodemus.  With  the  latter  He  reveals  Himself  as  the  only- 
begotten  Son,  while  still  avoiding  the  title  of  Christ.  With  the  Samaritan 
He  boldly  uses  this  latter  term  ;  but  without  dreaming  of  initiating  into 
the  mysteries  of  the  incarnation  and  of  redemption  this  soul  which  is  yet 
only  in  the  first  rudiments  of  the  moral  life.  Certain  analogies  have  been 
observed  in  the  outward  course  of  these  two  conversations,  and  an  argu- 
ment has  been  drawn  from  them  against  the  truth  of  the  two  stories.  But 
this  resemblance  naturally  results  from  what  is  analogous  in  the  two  meet- 
ings :  on  both  sides,  a  soul  wholly  earthly  finding  itself  in  contact  with  a 
heavenly  thought,  and  the  latter  trying  to  raise  the  other  to  its  own  level. 
This  similarity  in  the  situations  sufficiently  explains  the  correspondences 
of  the  two  conversations,  the  diversity  of  which  is,  moreover,  quite  as  re- 
markable as  the  resemblance, 

II. — Jesus  and  the  Disciples  :  w.  27-38. 

Ver.  27.  Upon  this l  his  disciples  came,  and  they  were  astonished  2  that  he  was 
speaking  with  a  woman;  yet  no  one  of  them  said:3  Whit  seekestthouf  or, 
Why  speakest  thou  with  her."  There  existed  a  rabbinical  prejudice,  accord- 
ing to  which  a  woman  is  not  capable  of  receiving  profound  religious  instruc- 

1  K  D  read  ev  toutw  instead  of  en-i  toutw.  C  D  G  K  L  M  It.  Vulg.  Cop.  Orig.  read  eflav- 

s  T.  R.  reads  eBaviiacrav  with  E  S  U  V  A  A  the        fia(ov  (were  marveling). 
larger  part  of  the  Mud.  Sah.  etc.    But  NAB  8XD  add  outw  (to  him)  after  «ur«i'. 


chap.  iv.  27-32.  433 

tion  :  "  Do  not  prolong  conversation  with  a  woman  ;  let  no  one  converse 
with  a  woman  in  the  street,  not  even  with  his  own  wife ;  let  a  man  burn 
the  words  of  the  law,  rather  than  teach  them  to  women  "  (see  Lighlfoot 
on  this  verse).  Probably  the  apostles  had  not  yet  seen  their  Master  set 
Himself  above  this  prejudice. — We  may  hesitate  between  the  two  read- 
ings marvelled  (idaifiaoav)  and  were  marvelling  (ttfaiyzaCoi').  The  first  gives  to 
the  astonisbment  the  character  of  a  momentary  act,  the  second  makes  of 
it  a  continuing  state.  Mivroi :  However,  the  astonisbment  did  not  extend 
so  far  in  any  one  of  them  as  to  lead  to  ask  Him  for  an  explanation. 
Zr/Teiv,  to  seek,  ask,  refers  to  a  service  which  He  had  requested,  like  that  of 
ver.  10 ;  ?.aleiv  to  speak,  to  a  given  instruction. 

Vv.  28,  29.  ''  The  woman  therefore  left  her  water-pot  and  went  away  into  the 
city  and  says  to  the  men :  29.  Come,  see  a  man  tvho  hath  told  me  all  the  things 
that1  I  have  done;  can  this  be  the  Christ  f  "  There/ore:  following  upon  the 
declaration  of  ver.  26,  she  does  not  speak,  she  acts,  as  one  does  when  the 
heart  is  profoundly  moved.  She  leaves  her  water-pot :  this  circumstance, 
apparently  insignificant,  is  not  without  importance.  It  is  the  pledge  of  her 
early  return,  the  proof  that  she  goes  to  seek  her  husband  and  those  whom 
she  will  find.  She  constitutes  herself  thereby  a  messenger,  and,  as  it  were,  a 
missionary  of  Jesus.  What  a  contrast  between  the  vivacity  of  this  conduct 
and  the  silent  and  meditative  departure  of  Nicodemus!  And  what  truth  in 
the  least  details  of  this  narrative ! — Toir  avOpuwoic  (to  the  men),  to  the  first  per- 
sons whom  she  met  in  the  public  square. — There  is  great  simplicity  in  the 
expression  :  All  the  things  which  I  have  done.  She  does  not  fear  to  awaken 
by  this  expression  recollections  which  are  by  no  means  flattering  to  her- 
self. She  formulates  her  question  in  a  way  which  seems  to  anticipate  a 
negative  answer  (jui/Ti,  not  however?).  " This  is  not,  however,  the  Christ,  is 
it?"  She  believes  more  than  she  says,  but  she  does  not  venture  to  set 
forth,  even  as  probable,  so  great  a  piece  of  news.  What  can  be  more  ■ 
natural  than  this  little  touch. 

Ver.  30.  "  They  went  out2  of  the  city,  and  were  coming  towards  him."  The 
Samaritans,  gathered  by  her,  arrive  in  large  numbers.  The  imperfect, 
they  were  corning,  contrasted  with  the  aorist,  they  went  out,  forms  a  picture ; 
we  see  them  hastening  across  the  fields  which  separate  Sychar  from  Jacob's 
well.  This  historical  detail  gives  the  key  to  Jesus'  words,  which  are  to 
follow.  The  therefore  must  be  rejected  from  the  text ;  the  attention  is 
wholly  turned  to  the  they  were  coming,  which  follows. 

Vv.  31,  32.  "In  the,  meanwhile,  the  disciples  prayed  him,,  saying:  Master, 
eat.  32.  But  he  said  unto  them,  I  have  meat  to  eat  which  ye  know  not."  Ver. 
31  (after  the  interruption  of  vv.  28,  29),  is  connected  with  ver.  27.  The 
words,  fv  dc  Tti  //e-aib  (in  the  mean  while),  denote  the  time  which  elapsed 
between  the  departure  of  the  woman  and  the  arrival  of  the  Samaritans. 
'Epunw  (to  ask)  takes  here,  as  often  in  the  New  Testament,  and  as  ^HW  does 


'   1  Instead  of  n-ai/Ta  oo-a,  X  B  C ;  It»"q. ;  Cop.,  with  X  A. :  several   Mnn. ;  It«»i. ;   Sah.    This 

read  navra  a.  particle  is  rejected  by  all  the  other  Mjj. ;  Vss. ; 

8  T.  K.  reads  ow  (therefore),  after  t^ijAfloi',  Orig. 

28 


434  FIRST  PART. 

in  the  Old  Testament,  the  sense  of  pray,  without,  however,  losing  altogether 
its  strict  sense  of  interrogate:  ask  whether  he  will  eat. 

Since  the  beginning  of  His  ministry,  Jesus  had  perhaps  had  no  joy  such 
as  this  which  He  had  just  experienced.  This  joy  had  revived  Him,  even 
physically.  "You  say  to  me:  eat!  But  I  am  satisfied;  I  have  had,  in 
your  absence,  a  feast  of  which  you  have  no  suspicion."  'Eyu  (I),  has  the 
emphasis  ;  this  word  places  His  person  in  strong  contrast  to  theirs  (vpelq, 
you):  "You  have  your  repast ;  I  have  mine." — Bpixuc,  strictly  the  act  of 
eating,  but  including  the  food,  which  is  its  condition.  The  abstract  word 
better  suits  the  spiritual  sense  of  this  saying,  than  the  concrete  (ipufia, 
(food). 

Vv.  83,  34.  "  The  disciples  therefore  said  one  to  another:  Has  any  one 
brought  him  anything  to  eat  ?  34.  Jesus  says  unto  them  :  My  meat  is  to  do1  the, 
will  of  my  Father  and  to  accomplish  his  work."  Mr/ng  introduces  a  negative 
question  :  "  No  one  indeed  has  brought  Him  .  .  .  ?  "  Jesus  explains  the 
profound  meaning  of  His  answer.  Here  He  uses  Ppa/m,  in  connection 
with  the  gross  interpretation  of  the  disciples.  We  need  not  see  in  the 
conjunction  'iva,  as  Weiss  would  have  us,  a  mere  periphrasis  for  the  infini- 
tive. That  which  sustains  Him  is  His  proposing  to  Himself  continually  to 
do  ...  to  accomplish  .  .  .  The  present  irmu — this  is  the  reading  of  the  T. 
R. — refers  to  the  permanent  accomplishment  of  the  divine  will  at  each 
moment,  and  the  conjunctive  aorist  releiuau  (to  accomplish,  to  finish),  refers 
to  the  end  of  the  labor,  to  the  perfect  consummation  of  the  task  which 
will,  of  course,  depend  .on  the  obedience  of  every  moment  (xvii.  4).  The 
reading  (noiS/tro),  of  the  Vatican  MS.,  Origen,  and  the  Greco-Latin  author- 
ities spoils  this  beautiful  relation  ;  it  is  rejected  by  Tischendorf  and  Meyer. 
This  TToa'/ao)  arose  from  an  assimilation  to  teIemcu.  The  relation  between 
the  two  substantives  OeXr/ua  (will),  and  ipyov  (work),  corresponds  with  that 
of  the  two  verbs.  In  order  that  the  work  of  God  may  be  accomplished  at 
the  last  moment,  His  will  must  have  been  executed  at  every  moment. 
Hereby  Jesus  makes  His  disciples  see  that,  in  their  absence  He  has  been 
laboring  in  the  Father's  work,  and  that  it  is  this  labor  which  has  revived 
Him.  This  is  the  idea  which  He  is  about  to  develop,  by  means  of  an 
image  which  is  furnished  Him  by  the  present  situation. 

Vv.  35,  36.  "Say  ye  not  that  there  are  yet2  four  months,5  and  the  harvest 
cometh.  Behold  I  say  unto  you :  Lift  up  your  eyes,  and  look  on  the  fields,  for 
they  are  white  for  the  harvest.  36.  Already  even*  he  that  reapeth  receiveth  wages, 
and  gathereth  fruit  unto  eternal  life,  that  bothb  he  that  soivcth  and  he  that  reap- 
eth may  rejoice  together.'"  The  following  verses  (35-38)  have  presented  such 
difficulties  to  interpreters,  that  some  have  supposed  that  they  should  be 
transposed  by  placing  vv.  37,  38  before  ver.  36  (B.  Crusius).    Weiss  haa 

1  Instead  of  ttoico  which  T.  R.  reads  with  11  rerpa^voi. 

Mjj.  [including  X),  Mnn. ;  Vss.,  n-oujo-w  is  read  *T.  It.  reads  koh  before  o  0epi£u>v  with  13Mjj., 

inBDKL  T*,  Orig.  (three  times).  omitted  by  KBCDLT',  Ifi'i. ;  Orig. 

*  En  is  wanting  in  D  L  n,  GO  Mnn. ;  Syr"";  5  The  xai  after  iva  is  rejected  by  D  C  L  Tb 
Orig.  (sometimes).  TJ,  Orig.  (four  times). 

*  T  R. :  rerpaiJirivov  with  n  only,  instead  of 


chap.  iv.  33-36.  435 

supposed  that  ver.  35  originally  belonged  to  another  context.  It  must  be 
admitted  that  the  interpretations  proposed  by  Liicke,  de  Wette,  Meyer,  and 
Tholuck  are  not  adapted  to  remove  the  difficulties.  Some  see  in  them  a 
prophecy  of  the  conversion  of  the  Samaritan  people,  related  in  Acts  viii. ; 
others  apply  them  even  to  the  conversion  of  the  entire  Gentileworld,  and 
especially  to  the  apostolate  of  St.  Paul.  In  that  case,  it  is  not  surprising 
that  their  authenticity  should  be  suspected !  If  the  words  of  vv.  36  ff.,  have 
no  direct  connection  with  the  actual  circumstances,  how  can  we  connect 
them  with  those  of  ver.  35,  which,  according  to  Liicke  and  Meyer  them- 
selves, can  only  refer  to  the  arrival  of  the  inhabitants  of  Sychar  in  the 
presence  of  Jesus?  From  a  word  stamped  with  the  most  perfect  appro- 
priateness, Jesus  would  suddenly  pass  to  general  considerations  respecting 
the  propagation  of  the  Gospel.  So  de  Wette,  perceiving  the  impossibility 
of  such  a  mode  of  speaking  on  Jesus'  part,  has,  contrary  to  the  evidence, 
resolutely  denied  the  reference  of  ver.  35  to  the  arrival  of  the  inhabitants 
of  Sychar.  This  general  embarrassment  seems  to  us  to  proceed  from  the 
fact  that  the  application  of  Jesus'  words  to  the  actual  case  has  not  been 
sufficiently  apprehended  and  kept  in  mind.  They  have  thus  been  de- 
spoiled of  their  appropriateness.  A  friendly  and  familiar  conversation 
has  been  converted  into  a  solemn  sermon. 

Ver.  35  is  joined  with  ver.  30  precisely  as  ver.  31  is  with  ver.  27. 
Jesus  gives  His  disciples  to  understand,  as  already  appeared  from  His 
answer  (ver.  34),  that  a  scene  is  occurring  at  this  moment  of  which  they 
have  not  the  least  idea  :  while  they  are  thinking  only  of  the  preparation 
of  a  meal  to  be  taken,  behold  a  harvest  already  fully  ripe,  the  seeds  of 
which  have  been  sown  in  their  absence,  is  prepared  for  them.  Jesus  Him- 
self is,  as  it  were,  the  point  of  union  between  the  two  scenes,  altogether 
foreign  to  each  other,  which  are  passing  around  His  person  :  that  in  which 
the  disciples  and  that  in  Avhich  the  Samaritans  are,  Avith  Himself,  the 
actors. — Lightfoot,  Tholuck,  Liicke,  de  Wette  find  a  general  maxim,  a  proverb, 
in  the  first  words  of  ver.  35  :  When  a  man  has  once  sowed,  he  must  still 
wait  four  months  for  the  time  when  he  can  reap — that  is  to  say,  the  fruits 
of  any  work  whatever  are  not  gathered  except  after  long  waiting  (2  Tim. 
ii.  6).  But  in  Palestine  not  four,  but  six  months  separate  the  sowing  (end 
of  October)  from  the  reaping  (middle  of  April).  Besides,  the  adverb  ert 
(there  are  yet)  would  not  suit  a  proverb;  the  words:  since  the  sowing, 
would  have  been  necessary.  Finally,  why  put  this  proverb  especially  into 
the  mouth  of  the  Apostles  (you),  rather  than  in  that  of  men  in  general? 
There  is  then  here  a  reflection  which  Jesus  ascribes  to  His  disciples 
themselves. — Between  Jacob's  well,  at  the  foot  of  Gerizim,  and  the  village 
of  Aschar,  at  the  foot  of  Ebal,  far  on  into  the  plain  of  Mukhna,  there 
stretch  out  vast  fields  of  wheat.  As  they  beheld  the  springing  verdure  on 
this  freshly  sown  soil,  they  no  doubt  said  to  one  another:  we  must  wait 
yet  four  months  till  this  wheat  shall  be  ripe!  From  this  little  detail  we 
must  conclude  that  this  occurred  four  months  before  the  middle  of  April, 
thus  about  the  middle  of  December,  and  that  Jesus  had  consequently 
remained  in  Judea  from  the  feast  of  the  Passover  until  the  close  of  the 


436  FIRST  PART. 

year,  that  is,  eight  full  months. — The  words :  You  say,  contrast  the 
domain  of  nature  to  which  this  reflection  of  the  disciples  applies,  to  the 
sphere  of  the  Spirit  in  which  Jesus'  thought  is  moving.  In  that  sphere, 
indeed,  the  seed  is  not  necessarily  subject  to  such  slow  development.  It 
can  sometimes  germinate  and  ripen  as  if  in  an  instant.  The  proof  of  this 
is  before  their  eyes  at  this  very  moment :  l6oi  (behold) !  This  word  directs 
the  attention  of  the  disciples  to  a  spectacle  Which  was  wholly  unexpected 
and  even  incomprehensible  to  their  minds,  that  of  the  Samaritans  who 
are  hastening  across  the  valley  towards  Jacob's  well. — /  say  unto  you :  I 
who  have  the  secret  of  what  is  taking  place.  The  act  of  raising  tJte  eyes 
and  looking,  to  which  He  invites  them,  is,  according  to  de  Wette,  purely 
spiritual ;  Jesus  would  induce  them  to  picture  to  themselves  beforehand 
through  faith,  the  future>conversion  of  this  people  (comp.  Acts  viii.).  But 
the  imperative;  dedcaaffe  (look),  must  refer  to  an  object  visible  at  that  very 
moment.  And  what  meaning  is  to  be  given  to  the  figure  of  four  months  f 
The  fact  to  which  these  words  refer,  therefore,  caxi  only  be  the  arrival  of 
the  people  of  Sychar.  We  understand,  then,  the  use  of  the  imperfect 
they  were  coming  (ver.  30),  which  formed  a  picture  and  left  the  action  incom- 
plete. These  eager  souls  who  hasten  towards  Him  disposed  to  believe — 
this  is  the  spectacle  which  Jesus  invites  His  disciples  to  behold.  He  pre- 
sents these  souls  to  them  under  the  figure  of  a  ripening  harvest,  which  it 
only  remains  to  gather  in.  And,  as  He  thinks  of  the  brief  time  needed 
by  Him  to  prepare  such  a  harvest  in  this  place,  until  now  a  stranger  to  the 
kingdom  of  God,  He  is  Himself  struck  by  the  contrast  between  the  very 
long  time  (five  to  six  months),  which  is  demanded  by  the  law  of  natural 
vegetation,  and  the  rapid  development  which  the  divine  seed  can  have  in 
a  moment,  in  the  spiritual  world ;  and,  as  an  encouragement  for  His  dis- 
ciples in  their  future  vocation,  He  points  out  to  them  this  difference.  The 
ii6n  (already),  might  be  regarded  as  ending  ver.  35.  "  They  are  white  for 
the  harvest  already."  This  word  would  thus  form  the  counterpart  of 
tri  (yet),  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse ;  comp.  1  John  iv.  3,  where  r/Srj  is 
placed,  in  the  same  way,  at  the  end  of  the  sentence.  This  word,  however, 
becomes  still  more  significant,  if  it  is  placed,  as  we  have  placed  it  in  the 
translation,  at  the  opening  of  the  following  verse  :  r/6r/  mi  (already  even).  This 
is  acknowledged  by  Keil,  who  rightly  observes  that  in  this  way  also  already 
forms  a  contrast  to  yet. 

There. is,  indeed,  between  v,er.  35  and  ver.  36,  a  climactic  relation  which 
betrays  an  increasing  exaltation.  "  It  is  true,"  says  Jesus,  "  that  already 
the  harvest  is  ripe,  that  at  this  very  hour  the  reaper  has  only  to  take  his 
sickle  and  reap,  in  order  that  both  the  sower  and  the  reaper  may  in  this 
case,  at  least,  celebrate  together  the  harvest-feast."  If  such  is  the  mean- 
ing, the  authenticity  of  ml,  and  (after  i^n),  is  manifest,  and  Origen,  with 
the  Alexandrian  authorities  in  his  train,  is  found,  once  more,  to  have  been 
an  unfortunate  corrector.  After  having  connected  f/613  (already),  with  the 
preceding  sentence,  he  rejected  the  ««/  (and  or  even),  in  order  to  make  of 
ver.  36,  instead  of  an  expression  full  of  appropriateness  and  charm,  a 
general  maxim.   The  reaper,  according  to  ver.  38,  must  denote  the  apostles. 


chap.  iv.  35,  36.  437 

The  expression,  ficadbv  Xafifldveiv  {to  receive  wages),  describes  the  joy  with 
which  they  are  to  be  filled  when  gathering  all  these  souls  and  introducing 
them  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  This  expression  {receive  wages)  is  ex- 
plained by  awayeiv  nap-ov  {to  gather  fruit).  Perhaps  there  is  a  reference  to 
the  act  of  baptism  (ver.  2),  by  which  these  new  brethren,  the  believing 
Samaritans,  are  about  to  be  received  by  the  disciples  into  the  Messianic 
community.  And  why  must  the  reaper  set  himself  at  work  without 
delay  ?  Because  there  is  something  exceptional  to  happen  on  this  day, 
"iva  {in  order  that).  God  has  intended  in  this  circumstance  to  bring  to  pass 
a  remarkable  thing,  namely :  that  both  the  sower  and  the  reaper  may 
once  rejoice  together.  Those  who  apply  the  figure  of  the  harvest  to  the 
future  conversion  of  the  Samaritans  by  the  apostles,  or  to  that  of  the  Gen- 
tile world  by  St.  Paul,  are  obliged  to  refer  the  common  joy  of  the  sower 
(Jesus),  and  the  reaper  (the  apostles),  to  the  heavenly  triumph  in  which  the 
Lord  and  His  servants  will  rejoice  together  in  the  fruit  of  their  labor. 
But,  first,  this  interpretation  breaks  all  logical  connection  between  ver. 
35  and  ver.  36.  How  pass  directly  from  this  spectacle  of  the  Samaritans 
who  hasten  to  Him  to  the  idea  of  the  future  establishment  of  the  Gospel 
in  their  country  or  in  the  world  ?  Then,  the  present  xa'<PV  {may  rejoice), 
refers  naturally  to  a  present  joy,  contrary  io3Ieyer.  Luthardi  seeks  to  escape 
the  difficulty  by  giving  to  6/iov  {together),  the  sense,  not  of  a  simultaneous  joy, 
but  of  a  common  joy,  which  is,  of  course,  impossible.  This  sense  of  the  adverb 
would,  moreover,  suppress  the  idea  which  constitutes  the  beauty  of  this 
expression,  the  simultaneousness  of  the  joy  of  the  two  laborers.  Jesus 
recognizes  in  what  takes  place  at  this  moment,  a  feast  which  the  Father 
has  prepared  for  Him,  and  which  He,  the  sower,  is  about  to  enjoy  at  the 
same  time  with  His  disciples,  the  reapers.  In  Israel  Jesus  has  sowed,  but 
He  never  has  had  the  joy  of  being  Himself  present  at  a  harvest.  The  in- 
gathering will  one  day  take  place,  no  doubt,  but  when  He  will  be  no  longer 
there.  Here,  on  the  contrary,  through  His  providential  meeting  with 
this  woman,  through  her  docility  and  the  eagerness  of  this  population 
which  hastens  to  Him,  He  sees  the  seed  spring  up  and  ripen  in  a  moment, 
so  that  the  harvest  can  be  gathered,  and  He,  the  sower,  may,  at  least  once 
in  His  life,  participate  in  the  harvest-feast.  This  simultaneousness  of  joy, 
altogether  exceptional,  is  strongly  brought  out  by  the  Sfiov  {together),  but 
also  by  the  double  nai  ("  both  the  sower  and  the  reaper  "),  and  by  the  f,dq 
{already),  at  the  beginning  of  the  clause.  To  understand  fully  the  mean- 
ing of  this  gracious  expression,  we  must  remember  that  the  Old  Testa- 
ment established  a  contrast  between  the  function  of  the  sower  (united  with 
that  of  the  laborer),  and  the  office  of  the  reaper.  The  first  was  regarded 
as  a  painful  labor;  Ps.  exxvi.  5,  G:  "Those  who  sow  with  tears  .  .  .  He 
who  puts  the  seed  in  the  ground  shall  go  iveeping  ..."  The  reaper's 
task,  on  the  contrary,  was  regarded  as  a  joyous  thing.  "They  shall  reap 
with  a  song  of  triumph  .  .  .  He  shall  return  with  rejoicing,  when  he  shall 
bring  back  his  sheaves."  On  this  day,  by  reason  of  the  'rapidity  with 
which  the  seed  has  germinated  and  ripened,  the  labor  of  the  seed  sowing 
meets  the  joyous  shouts  of  the  harvest.    Herein  is  the  explanation  of  the 


438  FIRST   PART. 

construction  by  which  the  verb  xa'lPV  is  much  more  closely  connected,  in 
the  Greek  sentence,  with  the  first  subject  6  tnreipav,  the  soiver,  than  with  the 
second  6  depi^av,  the  reaper  :  "  that  the  sower  may  rejoice  at  the  same  time 
with  the  reaper." 

Weiss  refers  the  in  order  Uuxt  to  the  intention  of  the  reaper,  who,  being 
in  the  service  of  the  same  landholder  as  the  sower,  wishes  that  the  latter 
also  may  rejoice  with  him.  The  idea,  if  we  thoroughly  understand  him, 
is  that  the  disciples  were  to  reap  in  their  future  ministry,  and  this  in 
order  that  Jesus  may  rejoice  in  heaven,  at  the  same  time  that  they  rejoice 
on  earth.  But  where  has  Jesus  ever  given  to  His  disciples  such  a  motive 
as  this  ?  And  in  what  connection  would  this  expression  stand  with  the 
present  case  ? 

Vv.  37,  3S.  "  For  herein  is  the  saying l  true :  The  soiver  is  one  and  the  reaper 
another.  38.  I  sent 2  you  to  reap  tliat  whereon  ye  have  not  labored  ;  other  men 
labored,  and  ye  are  entered  into  their  labor."  According  to  Tholuck,  Jesus  is 
grieved  at  the  thought  that  He  is  not  Himself  to  be  present  at  the  con- 
version of  the  Gentiles,  after  having  prepared  the  way  for  it,  and  to  this 
point  it  is  that  the  proverb  refers.  Astie  appears  to  be  of  the  same  opinion. 
Westcott  thinks  that  Jesus  prepares  the  apostles  for  the  future  disappoint- 
ments in  the  apostleship.  They  would  then  be  the  sowers  who  do  not 
reap,  while  the  whole  context  proves  that  only  Jesus  can  be  so.  Weiss : 
In  this  region  of  the  spiritual  harvest  it  is  not  as  in  ordinary  harvests, 
where  the  sower  is  often  the  same  as  the  reaper.  But  then  the  origin  of 
the  common  maxim  which  Jesus  quotes  is  not  explained,  for  it  expresses 
just  the  contrary  of  what  would  most  frequently  be  the  case  in  life. 
Then,  this  sense  of  iv  tovtu,  "  in  the  spiritual  domain,"  is  hardly  natural. 
This  form  of 'expression  has  rather  a  logical  sense  :  "  In  this,"  that  is,  "  in 
that  you  reap  to-day  what  has  been  sown  in  your  absence  and  without 
your  knowledge  "  (ver.  36)  :  thus  is  the  common  saying  verified.  For  if 
this  proverb  is  false  in  the  sense  which  is  ordinarily  assigned  to  it,  namely, 
that  he  who  does  the  main  part  of  the  labor  is  rarely  the  one  who  gathers 
the  fruit  of  it  (an  accusation  against  Providence),  it  is  nevertheless  true 
in  this  respect,  that  there  is  a  distinction  of  persons  between  him  who 
has  the  charge  of  sowing  and  him  who  has  the  mission  of  reaping.  This 
distinction  was  at  the  foundation  (for)  of  the  saying  in  ver.  36,  since  the 
community  of  joy  declared  in  that  verse  rests  upon  the  duality  of  persons 
and  offices  affirmed  by  the  proverb  ver.  37  :  "  one  .  .  .  another.  .  .  .  " — 
'A?.rjQiv6g,  not  in  the  sense  of  a?jfifc,  veritable,  which  says  truth,  but  in  the 
ordinary  Johannean  sense  :  which  answers  to  the  idea  of  the  thing  ;  thus  : 
The  or  (without  the  o)  a  saying  which  is  the  true  maxim  to  be  pro- 
nounced. This  distinction,  of  which  they  have  this  day  the  evidence, 
between  him  who  sows  and  him  who  reaps — on  this  it  is  that  the  whole 
activity  to  which  Jesus  has  called  them  will  rest :  such  is  the  idea  of  ver.  38. 
Ver.  38.  As  preachers,  the  apostles  will  do  nothing  but  reap  that  which 

1  The  article  o  before  oAi/flu-os  is  rejected  *H  D  read  ajreoroAKa,  instead  of  ajreoreiAa. 

by  B  C  K  L  i  some  Mnn.  Heracleon,  Orig. 


chap.  iv.  37,  38,  439 

has  been  painfully  sown  by  others.  These  last  are,  undoubtedly,  John  the 
Baptist  and  Jesus  Himself,  those  two  servants  who,  after  having  painfully 
ploughed  the  furrow,  have  watered  with  their  blood  the  seed  which  they 
had  deposited  in  it.  Only  there  is  ordinarily  a  misapprehension  of  the 
allusion  which  Jesus  makes  to  the  particular  fact  which  has  given  occasion 
to  these  words,  and  which  is,  as  it  were,  an  illustration  of  theni.  "  That 
will  happen  in  all  your  career  which  is  occurring  to-day."  /  have  sent  you 
to  reap :  Jesus  had  done  this  by  calling  them  to  the  apostleship  (vi.  70 ; 
Luke  vi.  13). — That  on  which  you  have  not  labored  :  This  harvest  in  Samaria 
— they  have  not  prepared  it,  any  more  than  they  have  prepared  that 
which  they  will  reap  afterwards  in  preaching  the  Gospel.  Others  have 
labored  :  in  the  present  case,  Jesus  and  the  Samaritan  woman — the  one  by 
His  word,  the  other  by  her  eager  hastening.  What  an  enigma  for  the 
disciples — this  population  hastening  to  Jesus  to  surrender  themselves  to 
His  divine  influence, — and,  what  is  more,  Samaritans !  What  has  taken 
place  in  their  absence  ?  Who  has  prepared  such  a  result  ?  Who  has  sown 
this  sterile  ground  ?  Jesus  seems  to  rejoice  in  their  surprise.  And  it  is, 
no  doubt,  with  a  friendly  smile  that  He  throws  out  to  them  these  myste- 
rious words  :  Others  labored.  They  may  see  here  an  example  of  what  they 
will  afterwards  experience :  In  all  their  ministry  nothing  different  will 
occur.  Commentators  discuss  the  question  whether,  by  this  word  others, 
Jesus  designates  Himself  alone  (Liicke,  Tholuck,  de  Wette,  Meyer  and  Weiss), 
taking  others  as  the  plural  of  category;  or  Himself  and  tlw  prophets,  includ- 
ing John  the  Baptist  {Keit);  or  all  these  personages  except  Jesus  (Olshausen). 
Westcott  applies  this  word  others  to  all  the  servants  of  God  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment (perhaps  with  an  allusion  to  Josh.  xxiv.  13).  The  disciples  have 
entered  into  the  work  of  their  predecessors  through  their  fruitful  ministry 
in  Judea  (ver.  2).  But  to  what  end  say  all  this  precisely  in  Samaria  ? 
The  two  most  curious  explanations  are  certainly  those  of  Baur  and  Hil- 
genfeld.  According  to  the  first,  by  the  term  others,  Jesus  designates  the 
evangelist  Philip  (Acts  viii.),  and  by  the  reapers,  the  apostles,  Peter  and 
John,  in  the  story  in  Acts  viii.  15.  To  the  view  of  the  second,  the  term 
others  designates  St.  Paul,  and  the  reapers  are  the  Twelve,  who  seek  to 
appropriate  to  themselves  the  fruit  of  his  labor  among  the  Gentiles.  On 
these  conditions,  one  might  wager  that  he  could  find  anything  in  any  text 
whatever.  These  forced  meanings  and  the  grave  critical  consequences 
which  are  drawn  from  them,  arise  in  large  measure  from  the  fact  that  the 
wonderful  appropriateness  of  these  words  of  Jesus,  as  He  applied  them 
to  the  given  situation,  has  not  been  apprehended. 

Jesus  is  thinking  undoubtedly  on  His  own  work  and  that  of  John,  and 
the  perfect:  you  are  entered,  is  indeed  that  which  is  ordinarily  understood 
by  it,  a  prophetic  anticipation;  hut  this  form  can  be  well  explained  only 
by  means  of  a  present  fact  which  suggests  it.  We  discover  here, 
with  Gess,  the  contrast  between  the  manner  in  which  Jesus  regarded  His 
work  and  the  idea  which  the  forerunner  had  funned  of  it  beforehand. 
"For  the  latter  the  time  of  the  Messiah  was  the  harvest;  Jesus,  on  the 
contrary,  here  regards  the  days  of  His  flesh  as  a  mere  time  of  sowing." 


440  FIRST   PAET. 

We  can  understand  how  it  must  have  been  more  and  more  difficult  for 
John  to  bring  his  thougbt  into  accord  with  the  work  of  Jesus. 

The  heavenly  joy  which  fills  the  Lord's  heart  throughout  this  section 
has  its  counterpart  only  in  the  passage,  Luke  x.  17-24.  Here  it  even 
assumes  a  character  of  gaiety.  Is  it  John's  fault,  if  Renan  finds  hi  the 
Jesus  of  the  fourth  Gospel  only  a  heavy  metaphysician  ? 

III. — Jesus  and  the  Samaritans:  vv.  89-42. 

yv>  39-42.  "  Noiv  many  of  the  Samaritans  of  that  city  believed  on  him1 
because  of  the  word  of  the  woman  ivho  testified:  He  told  me  all  things  thai'1, 1 
have  done.  40.  When,  therefore,  the  Samaritans  came  unto  him,  they  besought 
him  to  abide  with  tJiem;  and  he  abode  there*  two  days.  41.  And  many  more 
believed  on  him  because  of  his  word.  42.  And  they  said  to  the  woman :  No 
longer  because  of  thy  saying*  do  we  believe ;  for  we  have  heard  him  ourselves,6 
and  we  know  that  this  is  indeed  theSaviour  of  the  world."6  Here  now  is  the 
harvest-feast  announced  in  ver.  36 :  The  sower  rejoices  with  the  reapers. 
This  time  passed  at  Sychar  leaves  an  ineffaceable  impression  on  the  hearts 
of  the  apostles,  and  the  sweetness  of  this  recollection  betrays  itself  in  the 
repetition  of  the  words  two  days,  in  the  fortieth  and  forty-third  verses.  Ae, 
now,  resumes  the  course  of  the  narrative  after  the  digression  in  vv.  31-38. 
What  a  difference  between  the  Samaritans  and  the  Jews !  Here  a  miracle 
of  knowledge,  without  6clat,  is  enough  to  dispose  the  hearts  of  the  people 
to  come  to  Jesus,  while  in  Judea  eight  months  of  toil  have  not  procured 
for  him  one  hour  of  such  refreshment. 

The  thirty-ninth  verse  has  shown  us  the  first  degree  of  faith  :  The  coming 
to  Jesus,  as  the 'result  of  testimony.  The  fortieth  and  forty-first  verses  pre- 
sent the  higher  degree  of  faith,  its  development  through  personal  contact 
with  Jesus. 

Ver.  41  marks  a  two-fold  advance,  one  in  the  number  of  believers,  the 
other  in  the  nature  of  their  faith.  This  latter  advance  is  expressed  in  the 
words :  Because  of  His  word,  contrasted  with  the  words :  Because  of  the 
woman's  story  (ver.  39) ;  it  is  reflectively  formulated  in  the  declaration  of 
ver.  42.  The  Samaritans  reserve  the  more  grave  term  loyoq  for  the  word 
of  Jesus ;  they  apply  to  the  talk  of  the  woman  the  term  lalia,  which  has 
in  it,  undoubtedly,  nothing  contemptuous  (viii.  43,  where  Jesus  applies  it 
to  His  own  discourses),  but'  which  denotes  something  more  outward,  a 
mere  report,  a  piece  of  news.  The  verb  aKrjKoafiev,  we  have  heard,  has  in  the 
Greek  no  object ;  the  idea  is  concentrated  in  the  subject  av-oi :  "  We  have 
ourselves  become  hearers ;"  whence  follows :  "And  as  such  we  know."  The 
reading  of  the  Sinaitic  MS. :  "  We  have  heard  from  him  (from  his  mouth) 

l  J<  It»'i<i  Orig.,  omit  ei?  auTor  (on  him).  It«Ui  a-qv  ixaprvpiav. 

*  X  B  C  L  It"11?  Syr.  Cop.  read  a  instead  of  6X  Syr*™  add  trap  avrov  (from  him) 

o<ra. 


61G  Mjj.,  most  of  the  Mnn.,  It^'i  Syr"11  add, 
ith  the  T.  B.,  o  xPl<rT°s-    These  words  are 
ejected  byKBC  T>>.,  some  Mnn.,  ItP>«ii« 
*  Instead  of  <rr)v  AoAiai/  B :  AaAiax  aov ;  X  D       V  ulg.  Cop.,  Syr™'  Orig.  Iren.  Heracleon.        J 


3tf  Syr. :  Trap'  au-rocs  (with  them),  instead  of        with  the  T.  R.,  o  xP1"*™*-    These  words  are 
licet  (there).  rejected  by  X  B  C  Tb.,  some  Mnn.,  Up1""!" 


chap.  iv.  39-42.  441 

and  we  know  that  .  .  .  ,"  would  give  to  the  following  profession  the 
character  of  an  external  and  slavish  repetition,  opposed  to  the  spirit  of  the 
narrative.  The  expression  :  The  Saviour  of  the  world  seems  to  indicate  an 
advance  in  the  notion  of  the  Messiah  in  these  Samaritans.  The  question 
is  of  salvation,  and  no  longer  merely  of  teaching  as  in  ver.  25.  This 
expression  is,  perhaps,  connected  with  the  word  of  Jesus  to  the  woman 
(ver.  22),  which  Jesus  must  have  developed  to  them :  "  Salvation  is  from 
the  Jews."  Tholuck  and  Lucke  suspect  the  historical  truth  of  this  term 
Saviour  of  the  world,  as  too  universalistic  in  the  mouth  of  these  Samaritans. 
By  what  right?  Did  not  these  people  possess  in  their  Pentateuch  the 
promise  of  God  to  Abraham  :  "All  the  families  of  the  earth  shall  be  blessed,  in 
thy  seed,"  to  which  Jesus  might  have  called  their  attention  ?  And  had  they 
not  just  been,  during  those  two  days,  in  direct  contact  with  the  love  of  the 
true  Christ,  so  opposite  to  the  particularistic  arrogance  of  Jewish  Pharisa- 
ism? The  Alexandrian  authorities  reject  the  words  6  xp'ar^,the  Christ. 
Undoubtedly  there  might  be  seen  in  them  the  seal  of  the  union  announced 
by  Jesus  (vv.  23,  24)  between  the  Samaritans  (the  Saviour  of  the  world)  and 
the  Jews  (the  Christ).  But  it  is  easier  to  understand  how  this  term  may 
have  been  added,  than  how  it  could  have  been  rejected. 

The  eager  welcome  which  Jesus  found  among  the  Samaritans  is  an 
example  of  the  effect  which  the  coming  of  Christ  should  have  produced 
among  His  own.  The  faith  of  these  strangers  was  the  condemnation  of 
Israel's  unbelief.  It  was,  undoubtedly,  under  this  impression  that  Jesus, 
after  those  two  exceptional  days  in  His  earthly  existence,  resumed  His 
journey  to  Galilee. 

THIRD  SECTION. 

IV.  43-54. 

Jesus  in  Galilee. 

In  Judea,  unbelief  had  prevailed.  In  Samaria,  faith  had  just  appeared. 
Galilee  takes  an  intermediate  position.  Jesus  is  received  there,  but  by  reason 
of  His  miracles  accomplished  at  Jerusalem,  and  on  condition  of  responding 
immediately  to  this  reception  by  new  prodigies.  The  following  narrative 
(comp.  ver.  48)  furnishes  the  proof  of  this  disposition  of  mind.  Such  is  the 
import  of  this  narrative  in  the  whole  course  of  the  Gospel. 

Vv.  43-45  describe  the  general  situation.  Then,  on  this  foundation 
there  rises  the  following  incident  (vv.  4G-54).  We  may  compare  here 
the  relation  of  the  conversation  with  Nicodemus  to  the  general  represen- 
tation in  ii.  23-25,  or  that  of  the  last  discourse  of  the  forerunner  to  the 
representation  in  iii.  22-24. 

1.  Vv.  43-45. 

Vv.  43-45.  "After  these  two  days,  he  departed  thence  and  went  away '  into 
Galilee.      44.  For  Jesus  Himself  had  declared  t/ud  a  prophet  has  no  honor  in 

»  N'  B  C  D  Tb  Itpieriquo  Syr*"  Cop.  Orig.  omit  the  words  icai  anr/^dty  (went  away)  after  fKftfcr. 


442  FIRST  PART. 

his  own  country.  45.  When  *  therefore  he  came  into  Galilee,  the  Galileans  re- 
ceived him,  because  they  had  seen  all  the  things  that  he '  did  in  Jerusalem,  at 
the  feast ;  for  they  also  went 3  to  the  feast.''''  This  passage  has  from  the  begin- 
ning been  a  crux  intcrpretum.  How  can  John  give  as  the  cause  {for,  ver. 
44)  of  the  return  of  Jesus  to  Galilee  this  declaration  of  the  Lord  "  that  no 
prophet  is  honored  in  his  own  country !  "  And  how  can  he  connect  with 
this  adage  as  a  consequence  (tlierefore,  ver.  45)  the  fact  that  the  Galileans 
gave  Him  an  eager  welcome  ?  1.  Bruckner  and  Luthardt  think  that  Jesus 
sought  either  conflict  (Bruckner)  or  solitude  (Luthardt).  This  would  well 
explain the  for  of  ver.  44.  But  it  would  be  necessary  to  admit  that  the 
foresight  of  Jesus  was  greatly  deceived  (ver.  45),  which  is  absolutely 
opposed  to  the  particle  ohv  (therefore),  which  connects  ver.  45  with  the  pre- 
ceding. Instead  of  therefore,  but  would  have  been  necessary.  Moreover, 
Jesus  did  not  seek  conflict,  since  He  abandoned  Judea  in  order  to  avoid 
it;  still  less  solitude,  for  He  wished  to  work.  2.  Weiss,  nearly  like  Bruck- 
ner: Jesus  leaves  to  His  disciples  the  care  of  reaping  joyously  in  Samaria 
afterwards;  He  Himself  goes  to  seek  the  hard  labor  of  the  sower  in  Gali- 
lee. But  the  thought  of  the  future  evangelization  of  Samaria  is  alto- 
gether foreign  to  this  passage  (see  above) ;  and  ver.  45  is  opposed  to  this 
sense  ;  for  it  makes  prominent  precisely  the  fact  that  Jesus  found  in  Gali- 
lee the  most  eager  welcome.  Weiss  escapes  this  difficulty  only  by  mak- 
ing the  therefore  of  ver.  45  relate  to  ver.  43  and  not  to  ver.  44,  and  by  mak- 
ing it  a  particle  designed  to  indicate  the  resumption  of  the  narrative.  But 
after  the  for  of  ver.  44,  therefore  has  necessarily  the  argumentative  sense. 
3.  According  to  Liicke,  de  Wette  and  Tholuck,  the  for  of  ver.  44  is  designed 
to  explain,  not  what  precedes,  but  the  fact  which  is  about  to  be  announced, 
ver.  45.4  The 'sense  would,  thus,  be  :  "  Jesus  had  indeed  declared  ...  ;" 
this  indeed  relating  to  the  fact  mentioned  in  ver.  45,  that  the  Galileans  no 
doubt  received  Him,  but  only  because  of  the  miracles  of  which  they  had 
been  witnesses.  But  this  very  rare  use  of  yap  is  foreign  to  the  New  Tes- 
tament. This  interpretation  is  hardly  less  forced  than  that  of  Kuinoel, 
who  gives  to  for  the  sense  of  although,  as  also  Ostervald  translates.  4. 
Origen,  Wieseler,  Ebrard,  Baur  and  Keil  understand  by  16  ia  narplr  (his  own 
country),  Judea,  as  the  place  of  Jesus'  birth.  By  this  means,  the  two  diffi- 
culties of  the  for  and  the  therefore  pass  away  at  once.  But  common  sense 
tells  us  that,  in  the  maxim  quoted  by  Jesus,  the  word  country  must  denote 
the  plate  where  the  prophet  has  lived  and  where  he  has  been  known 
from  infancy,  and  not  that  where  he  was  merely  born.  It  is,  therefore, 
very  evident  that,  in  the  thought  of  John,  His  own  country  is  Galilee. 
5.  Calvin,  Hcngstcnberq  and  Bdumlein  understand  by  his  own  country  espe- 
cially Nazareth,  in  contrast  with  the  rest  of  Galilee,  and  with  Capernaum 
in  particular  where  He  went  to  make  His  abode.  He  came,  not  to  Naza- 
reth, as  might  have  been  expected,  but  to  Capernaum.   (Comp.  Mark  vi. 


'8D  read  <oc  instead  of  ore  (probably  ac-  s  X  It.  read  eArjAvde  tatty  for  ijAiW. 

cording  to  ver.  40).  <Comp.  Tholuck,  Commentary  on  the  Ep.  to 

•  ABCL  Orig.  (4  times)  read  oo-o  for  a,  the  Rom.  5th  ed.  chap.  ii.  ver.  1. 


chap.  rv.  43-45.  443 

1 ;  Matt.  xiii.  54-57  ;  Luke  iv.  1G,  24.)  Lange  applies  the  term  country  to 
the  whole  of  lower  Galilee,  in  which  Nazareth  was  included,  in  opposition 
to  upper  Galilee  where  Jesus  went  to  fix  His  abode  from  this  time.  But 
how  could  Nazareth,  or  the  district  of  Nazareth,  be  thus,  without  further 
explanation,  placed  outside  of  Galilee,  or  even  in  contrast  with  that  prov- 
ince? It  might  still  be  comprehensible,  if,  in  the  following  narrative, 
John  showed  us  Jesus  fixing  His  abode  at  Capernaum ;  but  it  is  to  Cana 
that  He  betakes  Himself,  and  this  town  was  very  near  to  Nazareth.  G. 
Meyer  seems  to  us  quite  near  the  truth,  when  he  explains  :  Jesus,  knowing 
well  that  a  prophet  is  not  honored  in  his  own  country,  began  by  making 
Himself  honored  outside  of  it,  at  Jerusalem  (ver.  45);  and  thus  it  was  that 
He  returned  now  to  Galilee  with  a  reputation  as  a  prophet,  which  opened 
for  Him  access  to  hearts  in  His  own  country.  Reuss  is  disposed  to  hold 
the  same  relation  of  thought :  "  In  order  to  be  received  in  Galilee,  He 
had  been  obliged  first  to  make  Himself  acknowledged  outside  of  it." 

The  complete  explanation  of  this  obscure  passage  follows,  as  in  so  many 
cases,  from  the  relation  of  the  fourth  Gospel  to  the  Synoptics.  The  latter 
make  the  Galilean  ministry  begin  immediately  after  the  baptism.  But 
John  reminds  us  here,  at  the  time  of  Jesus'  settlement  in  Galilee,  that 
Jesus  had  followed  a  course  quite  different  from  that  which  the  earlier 
narratives  seemed  to  attribute  to  Him.  The  Lord  knew  that  the  place 
where  a  prophet  has  lived  is  the  one  where,  as  a  rule,  he  has  most  diffi- 
culty in  finding  recognition.  He  began,  therefore,  by  working  at  Jerusa- 
lem and  in  Judca  for  quite  a  long  time  (almost  a  whole  year :  ver.  35), 
and  it  was  only  after  this  that  He  came  in  the  strict  sense  to  begin  His 
ministry  in  Galilee,  that  ministry  with  which  the  narrative  of  the  other 
Gospels  opens.  The  meaning,  therefore,  is :  It  was  then,  and  only  then, 
(not  immediately  after  the  baptism),  that  He  commenced  the  Galilean 
work  with  which  every  one  is  acquainted.  We  find  in  this  passage,  as  thus  ' 
understood,  a  new  confirmation  of  our  remarks  on  iii.  24.  If  the  for,  ver. 
44,  indicates  the  cause  of  Jesus'  mode  of  acting,  the  therefore,  ver.  45, 
brings  out  in  relief  the  joyful  result  and  serves  thus  to  justify  the  wisdom 
of  the  course  pursued.  The  Galileans  who  had  seen  Him  at  work  on  the 
grand  theatre  of  the  capital,  made  no  difficulty  now  in  welcoming  Him. 
The  words  nai  a-f/Mev,  and  went  away,  are  rejected  by  the  Alexandrian 
authorities;  perhaps  they  were  added  from  ver.  13. 

Ver.  44.  Avr6g,  he,  the  same  who  apparently  was  acting  in  an  opposite 
way.  The  solution  of  the  contradiction  is  given  in  ver.  45.  'E/aaprvp^aev, 
testified,  can  here,  whatever  Meyer,  Weiss,  etc.,  may  say,  have  only  the 
sense  of  the  pluperfect,  like  iito'nptv  and  ty&ov  which  follow.  It  is  difficult 
to  believe,  indeed,  that  John  quotes  here,  for  the  purpose  of  explaining 
the  conduct  of  Jesus,  a  declaration  which  was  uttered  at  an  epoch  much 
farther  on,  like  that  of  Mark  vi.  4.  Comp.  Luke  iv.  24,  which  assigns  to 
this  saying  a  much  earlier  date.  The  idea  of  the  quoted  proverb  is  that 
one  is  less  disposed  to  recognize  a  superior  being  in  a  fellow  countryman, 
very  nearly  connected  with  us,  than  in  a  stranger  who  is  clothed,  to  our 
view,  in  a  veil  of  mystery.     But  after  that  this  same  man  has  brought 


444  FIRST   PART. 

himself  to  notice  elsewhere  and  on  a  wider  theatre,  this  glory  opens  the 
way  for  Him  to  the  hearts  of  His  own  fellow-citizens.  That  moment  had 
arrived  for  Jesus;  this  is  the  reason  why  He  now  braves  the  vulgar  preju- 
dice which  He  had  Himself  pointed  out ;  and  of  which  we  have  seen  an 
instance  in  the  reply  of  Nathanael,  i.  47.  And  the  success  justifies  this 
course.  The  words  wavra  tupanoTEQ,  having  seen  .  .  .  ,  explain  the  attijavro, 
they  received :  there  is  undoubtedly  an  allusion  to  ii.  23-25.  This  verse 
finds  its  commentary  in  Luke  iv.  14,  15 :  "And  .Testis  returned  to  Galilee  in 
the  power  of  the  Spirit,  and  his  fame  spread  abroad  through  all  the  region 
round  about ;  and  He  taught  in  their  synagogues,  being  glorified  by  all." 

2.  Vv.  46-54. 

Vv.  46,  47.  "  He  came,1  therefore,  again  to  Cana  of  Galilee  where  he  had 
changed  1  the  water  into  wine.  And*  there  was  at  Capernaum'6 a  king's  offi- 
cer, tuhose  son  was  sick.  47.  He,  having  heard  that  Jesus  liad  come  from  Judea 
into  Galilee,  went  unto  him  and  besought  him4,  that  he  would  come  down  and 
lieal  his  son  ;  for  he  was  at  the  point  of  death."  Therefore  connects  with  ver. 
3  and  ver.  45.  Jesus  directed  His  course  towards  Cana,  not,  as  Weiss 
thinks,  because  His  family  had  settled  there  (comp.  ii.  12  with  Matt.  iv. 
13),  but  undoubtedly  because  it  was  there  that  He  could  hope  to  find  the 
soil  best  prepared,  by  reason  of  His  previous  visit.  This  is  perhaps  what 
St.  John  means  to  intimate  by  the  reflection, "  where  he  had  changed  the  water 
into  wine."  His  coming  made  a  sensation,  and  the  news  promptly  spread 
as  far  as  Capernaum,  situated  seven  or  eight  leagues  eastward  of  Cana. 
The  term  (iaailmo^,  in  Josephus,  denotes  a  public  functionary,  either  civil 
or  military,  sometimes  also  an  employe  of  the  royal  house.  This  last 
meaning  is  here  the  most  natural  one.  Herod  Antipas,  who  reigned  in 
Galilee,  had  officially  only  the  title  of  tetrarch.  But  in  the  popular  lan- 
guage that  of  King,  which  his  father  had  borne,  was  given  him.  It  is  not 
impossible  that  this  nobleman  of  the  king's  household  may  have  been 
either  Chuza,  "  Herod's  steward  "  (Luke  viii.  3),  or  Manaen,  his  "  foster- 
brother  "  (Acts  iii.  1).  By  its  position  at  the  end  of  the  clause,  the  defin- 
ing expression  at  Capernaum  (which  refers,  not  to  was  sick,  but  to  there  was) 
strongly  emphasizes  the  notoriety  which  the  return  of  Jesus  had  speedily 
acquired  in  Galilee. 

V6r.  48.  "  Jesus  therefore  said  to  him  :  Unless  ye  see  signs  and  wonders  ye 
will  in  no  wise  believe."  This  reply  of  Jesus  is  perplexing;  for  it  seems  to 
suppose  that  this  man  asked  for  the  miracle  to  the  end  of  believing,  which 
is  certainly  not  the  case.  But  the  difficulty  is  explained  by  the  plurals, 
ye  see,  ye  ivill  believe,  which  prove  that  this  expression  is  not  the  reply  to 
the  father's  request,  but  a  reflection  which  He  makes  on  occasion  of  that 
request.     It  is  true,  He  addresses  the  remark  to  the  man  who  is  the  occa- 

1  K  reads  r)\9av,  tnoirjaav ;  "77iei/  came,  they  3X  B  C  D  Tb  ItPlerii:  Ka^appaovp. 

had  changed:'    (!)  *  ft  B  C  D  L  Tb  It*"!,  omit  awrou. 

•SDL  Tb  It. :  qv  5e  instead  of  nai  jjk. 


chap.  iv.  46-53.  445 

sion  of  it  (n-pof  avrdv),  but  He  speaks  thus,  with  reference  to  all  the  Gali- 
lean people,  whose  moral  tendency  this  man  represents,  to  His  view,  at 
this  moment.  Indeed,  the  disposition  which  Jesus  thus  meets  at  the  mo- 
ment when  He  sets  foot  again  on  Israelitish  soil,  is  the  tendency  to  see  in 
Him  only  a  thaumaturge  (worker  of  miracles);  and  He  is  so  much  the 
more  painfully  affected  since  He  has  just  passed  two  days  in  Samaria,  in 
contact  with  an  altogether  opposite  spirit.  There,  it  was  as  the  Saviour  of 
souls  that  He  was  welcomed.  Here,  it  is  bodily  cures  which  are  imme- 
diately asked  of  Him.  He  seems  to  be  lit  for  nothing  but  to  heal.  And 
He  is  obliged  to  confess — such  is  the  true  meaning  of  His  word — that  if 
He  refuses  to  play  this  part,  there  is  reason  to  fear  that  no  one  will  be- 
lieve, or  rather,  according  to  the  slightly  ironical  turn  of  expression  of 
which  He  makes  use  (ov  fir/),  "  that  it  is  not  to  be  feared  that  any  one  will 
believe."  There  is  likewise  the  expression  of  a  painful  feeling  in  the 
accumulation  of  the  two  nearly  synonymous  terms  arjfiela  and  rlpara,  signs 
and  wonders.  The  first  designates  the  miracle  as  related  to  the  fact  of  the 
invisible  world  which  it  manifests ;  the  second  characterizes  it  as  related 
to  external  nature,  whose  laws  it  sets  at  defiance.  The  latter  term,  there- 
fore, brings  out  with  more  force  the  sensible  character  of  the  supernatural 
manifestation.  The  meaning,  therefore,  is  :  "  You  must  have  signs ;  and 
you  are  not  satisfied  unless  these  signs  have  the  character  of  wonders." 
Some  have  found  in  Uz/te,  ye  see,  an  allusion  to  the  request  which  is  ad- 
dressed to  Him  to  go  personally  to  the  sick  person,  which  proves,  it  is 
said,  that  the  father  wishes  to  see  the  healing  with  his  own  eyes.  But  in 
that  case  ISt/ts  ought  to  stand  at  the  beginning ;  and  the  meaning  is  forced. 

Vv.  49,  50.  "  The  officer  says  to  him:  Sir,  come  down  ere  my  child  die,} 
50.  Jesus  says  to  him :  Go  thy  way,  thy  son  liveth.  And  *  the  man  believed 
the.  word  which  Jesus  had3  said  to  him,  and  he  went  his  way."  The  father 
has  well  understood  that  the  remark  of  Jesus  is  not  an  answer,  and  con-' 
sequently  not  a  refusal.  He  renews  his  request,  employing  the  term  of 
affection  to  naiSiov  fiov,  my  little  child,  which  renders  his  request  more  touch- 
ing. Jesus  yields  to  the  faith  which  breathes  in  his  prayer,  but  in  such  a 
way  as  immediately  to  elevate  the  faith  to  a  higher  degree.  There  are  at 
once  in  this  answer  :  "  Go  thy  ivay,  thy  son  liveth,"  a  granting  of  the  request 
and  a  partial  refusal,  which  is  a  test.  The  healing  is  granted ;  but  with- 
out Jesus  leaving  Cana ;  He  wishes  this  time  to  be  believed  on  His  word. 
Until  now  the  father  had  believed  on  the  testimony  of  others.  Now  his 
faith  is  to  rest  on  a  better  support,  on  the  personal  contact  which  he  has 
just  had  with  the  Lord  Himself.  For  the  term  -aiSiov  Jesus  substitutes 
vios,  son.  This  is  the  term  of  dignity ;  it  exalts  the  worth  of  the  child,  as 
representing  the  family.  The  father  lays  hold  by  faith  upon  the  promise 
of  Jesus,  that  is  to  say,  on  Jesus  Himself  in  His  word ;  the  test  is  sustained. 

Vv.  51-53.  "As  he  was  now  going  down,  his  servants  met*  him,  and  told* 

l\  and  some  Mnn.  read  utof  instead  of  4  Instead  of  a.irr\vTT]<ra.v,  K  BCD  K  L  20 

watSiov;   X  Trou5a.  Mnn.  read  ujrjjKTijaai'. 

*Kai  is  wanting  in  X  B  D   It»»l  Vulg.  6RD  read  r)yyti\av  for  anr)yyei\av. 

*  N :  tow  Ii)<rou  instead  of  w  .  .  .  .  Iijaous. 


446  FIRST   TART. 

him  saying : 1  TJiy  son  Uveth?  52.  So  he  inquired  of  them  the  hour  when  he 
began  to  mend.  They  said  to  hint :  yesterday,3  at  the  seventh  hour,  the  fever 
left  him.  53.  The  father,  therefore,  knew  that  it  was  at  that  hour 4  in  which 
Jesus  had  said  to  him : 5  Thy  son  liveth.  And  he  believed,  himself  and  all  his 
Jiouse."  The  servants,  in  their  report,  use  neither  the  term  of  affection 
(iraiAiov),  which  would  he  too  familiar,  nor  that  of  dignity  (tuof),  which 
would  not  he  familiar  enough,  hut  that  of  family  life  :  nalq,  the  child,  which 
the  T.  R.  rightly  gives.  The  selected  term  Ko^ipdrepov,  suits,  well  the 
mouth  of  a  man  of  rank.  It  is  the  expression  of  a  comparative  improve- 
ment; as  we  say,  finely.  The  seventh  hour,  according  to  the  ordinary 
Jewish  mode  of  reckoning,  denotes  one  o'clock  in  the  afternoon  (see  on  i. 
40).  But  if  it  was  at  that  hour  that  Jesus  had  given  his  answer  to  the 
father,  how  was  it  that  he  did  not  return  to  his  home  on  the  same  day  ? 
For  seven  leagues  only  separate  him  from  his  house.  Those  also 
who,  like  Keil,  Westcott,  etc.,  think  that  John  used,  in  general,  the  mode 
of  reckoning  the  hours  which  was  usual  in  the  Roman  courts,  support  their 
view,  with  a  certain  probability,  by  our  passage.  Nevertheless,  even  on 
the  supposition  that  Xflcc,  yesterday,  proves  that  it  was,  really  the  following 
day,  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  word,  this  delay  may  be  explained  either 
by  the  necessity  of  letting  his  horses  rest  or  by  the  fear  of  traveling  by 
night.  But  the  term  yesterday  does  not  even  compel  us  to  suppose  that  a 
night  has  elapsed  since  the  healing  of  the  child.  For  as  the  day,  accord- 
ing to  the  Hebrews,  closed  at  sunset,  the  servants  might,  some  hours  after 
this,  say  yesterday. 

At  this  moment  the  faith  of  this  man  rises,  at  last,  to  a  higher  degree, 
that  of  personal  experience.  Hence  the  repetition  of  the  word  :  and  he 
believed;  comp.ji.  11.  The  entire  household  is  home  on  by  this  move- 
ment of  faith  impressed  on  the  heart  of  their  head. 

Ver.  54.  "  Jesus  did,  again,  this  second  sign,  on  coming  out  of  Judea  into 
Galilee."  The  word  Sevrepnv  cannot  be  an  adverb  :  for  the  second  time  ;  this 
would  be  a  useless  synonym  for  -koIlv,  again.  It  is,  then,  an  adjective, 
and,  notwithstanding  the  absence  of  an  article,  a  predicative  adjective.  "  He 
did  again  (-rrdliv)  this  miracle,  and  that  as  a  second  one."  There  is  evidently 
something  strange  in  this  somewhat  extreme  manner  of  expressing  him- 
self: again  and  as  a  second.  There  is  an  indication  here  which  betrays 
one  of  those  disguised  intentions  which  are  so  frequent  in  the  fourth  Gos- 
pel. -The  expression  employed  here  can  only  be  explained  by  closely 
connecting  the  "verb  did  with  the  participle  coming  into,  which  follows. 
Other  miracles  in  large  numbers  had  occurred  between  the  first  act  at 
Cana,  ii.  11  and  this  one  ;  this  was  not  therefore  the  second,  speaking  ab- 
solutely. Two  ideas  are  united  in  this  clause :  He  did  a  second  miracle  at 
Cana,  and  He  did  it  again  on  coming  from  Judea  into  Galilee.  In  other 
terms  :  Also  this  second  time  Jesus  signalized  His  return  to  Galilee,  as  the 
first  time,  by  a  new  miracle  done  at  Cana.     It  will  be  in  vain  to  refuse  to 

H(Db  omit  \tyovTc;.  3  X0«?  in  11  Mjj.,  eX9es  in  8. 

*D  K  L  U  II.  Syr.  read  viot  instead  of  natt.  *H  BC  reject  the  first  tv. 

KABC:  oi/tou  instead  of  <rov.  »  Jt  A  B  C  L  omit  oti. 


chap.  iv.  54.  447 

acknowledge  this  intention  of  the  evangelist.  It  is  a  fact,  that  John  shows 
himself  concerned  to  distinguish  these  lirst  two  returns  which  the  tradi- 
tion had  confounded.  He  makes  prominent  the  miracle  of  chap.  ii.  and 
this  one  as  the  two  enduring  monuments  of  that  distinction. 

Irenceus,  Semler,  de  Wdte,  Baur,  Ewahl,  Weiss,  unhesitatingly  identify  this  mira- 
cle with  the  healing  of  the  Gentile  centurion's  servant,  Matt.  viii.  5  and  Luke  vii. 
3.  As  to  the  differences  of  details,  they  give  the  preference,  some  to  the  account 
of  the  Synoptics,  others  to  that  of  John.  In  the  two  cases,  the  cure  is  wrought  at 
a  distance  ;  this  is  all  that  the  two  events  have  in  common.  The  charge  of  unbe- 
lief which,  in  the  view  of  Weiss,  is  another  common  feature,  on  the  contrary  pro- 
foundly distinguishes  them.  For,  in  John,  it  is  addressed  to  the  people  including 
the  father,  while  in  the  Synoptics  it  applies  only  to  the  nation  from  which  the  father 
is  distinguished  as  the  example  of  the  most  extraordinary  faith  of  which  Jesus  has 
yet  been  witness.  And  yet  here  is  the  same  story !  Moreover,  all  the  details  are 
different,  even  opposite.  Here  a  father  and  his  son,  there  a  master  and  his  servant. 
Here  a  Jew,  there  a  Gentile.  Here  it  is  at  Cana,  there  at  Capernaum,  that  the 
event  occurs.  Here  the  father  wishes  Jesus  to  travel  to  the  distance  of  six 
leagues ;  there  the  centurion  absolutely  denies  the  intention  of  making  Him  come 
to  his  house,  and  this  in  the  same  city.  Finally,  as  we  have  said  ;  here  is  a  sam- 
ple of  the  sickly  faith  of  the  Galileans;  there  an  incomparable  example  of  faith 
given  by  a  Gentile  to  the  whole  people  of  Israel.  If  these  two  narratives  refer  to 
the  same  event,  the  Gospel  history  is  thoroughly  unsound.  Weiss  so  clearly  sees 
this  alleged  identity  melt  away  in  his  hands,  that  he  is  obliged  to  bring  in  a  third 
story,  that  of  the  healing  of  the  epileptic  child  (Matt,  xvii.),  with  which  John 
blended  the  one  which  occupies  our  attention. 

This  54th  verse  closes  the  cycle  began  at  ii.  12,  as  its  counterpart  ii.  11 
closed  the  cycle  opened  by  i.  19.  Of  these  two  cycles,  the  first  recounts 
the  manner  in  which  Jesus  passed  from  private  life  to  His  public  minis- 
try :  the  latter  relates  the  beginnings  of  His  work. 

The  first  contains  three  groups  of  narratives  :  1.  The  testimonies  of  John 
the  Baptist ;  2.  The  coming  to  Jesus  of  His  first  disciples ;  3.  The  wedding 
at  Cana.  The  second  shows  us  Jesus:  1.  In  Judea;  2.  In  Samaria;  3.  In 
Gahlee.  Each  particular  narrative  is  preceded  by  a  short  preamble  in 
which  the  general  situation  is  sketched  (ii.  12,  13;  ii.  23-25;  iii.  22-24;  iv. 
1-3  and  iv.  43-45).  The  revelation  of  Jesus  goes  forward  in  a  continuous 
way :  at  the  Jordan,  at  Cana,  in  the  temple,  with  Nicodemus,  in  Samaria, 
in  Galilee.  But  the  national  unbelief  manifests  itself:  before  it,  He  is 
obliged  to  retire  from  the  temple  to  the  city,  from  the  city  to  the  country, 
from  Judea  to  Galilee.  But,  at  the  same  time,  faith  comes  to  light  and  is 
developed  :  in  all  its  integrity  in  the  disciples;  as  a  feeble  glimmering  in 
Nicodemus ;  dimmed  by  an  intermingling  of  carnal  elements  in  Galilee. 


SECOND   PART. 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  UNBELIEF  IN  ISRAEL. 

V.  1-XII.  50.  t 

Up  to  this  point,  decided  faith  and  unbelief  have  been  only  exceptional 
phenomena  ;  the  masses  have  remained  in  a  state  of  passive  indifference 
or  of  purely  outward  admiration.  From  this  time,  the  situation  assumes 
a  more  determinate  character.  Jesus  continues  to  make  known  the 
Father,  to  manifest  Himself  as  that  which  He  is  for  humanity.  This  rev- 
elation meets  with  increasing  hostility ;  the  development  of  unbelief, 
becomes  the  predominating  feature  of  the  history.  Faith  indeed  still 
manifests  itself  partially.  But,  in  comparison  with  the  powerful  and  rapid 
current  which  hears  on  the  leaders  and  the  entire  body  of  the  nation,  it  is 
like  a  weak  and  imperceptible  eddy. 

It  is  in  Judea  especially  that  this  preponderant  development  of  unbelief 
is  accomplished.  In  Galilee  opposition  is,  no  doubt,  also  manifested ;  but 
the  centre  of  resistance  is  at  Jerusalem.  The  reason  of  this  fact  is  easy  to 
be  understood.-  In  this  capital,  as  well  as  in  the  province  of  Judea  which 
depends  on  it,  a  well-disciplined  population  is  found,  whose  fanaticism  is 
ready  to  support  its  rulers  in  every  most  violent  action  which  their  hatred 
may  undertake.  Jesus  Himself  depicts  this  situation  in  the  Synoptics  by 
that  poignant  utterance :  "  It  cannot  be  that  a  prophet  perish  out  of 
Jerusalem  "  (Luke  xiii.  33). 

This  observation  explains  the  relatively  considerable  place  which  the 
journeys  to  Jerusalem  occupy  in  our  Gospel.  The  general  tradition,  which 
farms  the  basis  of  the  three  Synoptical  Gospels,  was  formulated  with  a  view 
to  the  popular  preaching,  and  to  serve  the  ends  of  the  apostolic  mission ; 
consequently  it  set  in  relief  the  facts  which  were  connected  with  the 
foundation  of  faith.  What  had  not  this  issue  had  little  importance  for  a 
narrative  of  this  kind.  Now,  it  was  in  Galilee,  that  province  which  was 
relatively  independent  of  the  centre,  that  the  ministry  of  Jesus  had  espe- 
cially displayed  its  creative  power  and  produced  positive  results.  In  this 
generally  simple  and  friendly  region,  where  Jesus  found  Himself  no  more 
in  the  presence  of  a  systematic  and  powerfully  organized  resistance,  He 
could  preach  as  a  simple  missionary,  give  free  scope  to  those  discourses 
inspired  by  some  scene  of  nature,  to  those  happy  and  most  appropriate 
words,  to  those  gracious  parables,  to  those  teachings  in  connection  with  the 
immediate  needs  of  human  consciousness ;  in  a  word,  to  all  those  forma 
448 


V.  1-xn.  50.  449 

of  discourse  which  easily  become  the  subject  of  a  popular  tradition.  There 
■was  little  engaging  in  discussion,  properly  so-called,  in  this  region,  except' 
with  emissaries  coming  from  Judea  (Matt.  xv.  1-12;  Mark  iii.  22;  vii.  1; 
Luke  v.  17,  and  vi.  1-7). 

At  Jerusalem,  on  the  other  hand,  the  hostile  element  by  which  Jesus 
found  Himself  surrounded,  forced  Him  into  incessant  controversy.  In 
this  situation,  no  doubt,  the  testimony  which  He  was  obliged  to  give  for 
Himself  took  more  energetic  forms  and  a  sterner  tone.  It  became  more 
theological,  if  we  may  so  speak ;  consequently  less  popular.  This  character 
of  the  Judean  teaching,  connected  with  the  almost  complete  failure  of  its 
results,  was  the  occasion  of  the  fact  that  the  activity  displayed  at  Jerusalem 
left  scarcely  any  trace  in  the  primitive  oral  tradition.  It  is  for  this  reason, 
undoubtedly,  that  the  visits  to  that  capital  almost  entirely  disappeared 
from  the  writings  which  contain  it,  our  Synoptics.  The  Apostle  John,  who 
afterwards  related  the  evangelical  history,  and  who  had  in  view,  not  the 
practical  work  of  evangelization,  but  the  preservation  of  the  principal  testi- 
monies which  Jesus  bore  to  Himself,  as  well  as  the  representation  of  the 
unbelief  and  faith  which  these  testimonies  encountered,  was  necessarily 
led  to  draw  the  journeys  to  Jerusalem  out  of  the  background  where  they 
had  been  left.  It  was  these  visits  in  the  capital  which  had  prepared  the 
way  for  the  final  catastrophe,  that  supreme  event  the  recollection  of  which 
alone  the  traditional  narrative  had  preserved.  Each  one  of  these  journeys 
had  marked  a  new  step  in  the  hardening  of  Israel.  Designed  to  form 
the  bond  between  the  Messianic  bridegroom  and  bride,  they  had  served, 
in  fact,  only  to  hasten  that  long  and  complete  divorce  between  Jehovah 
and  His  people,  which  still  continues  to  this  hour.  We  can  understand 
that,  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  the  journeys  to  Jeru- 
salem must  have  occupied  a  preponderant  place  in  the  narrative. 

Let  us  cast  a  glance  at  the  general  course  of  the  narrative  in  this  part. 
It  includes  three  cycles,  having,  each  one,  as  its  centre  and  point  of  de- 
parture, a  great  miracle  performed  in  Judea :  1.  The  healing  of  the  impo- 
tent man  at  Bethesda,  chap,  v.;  2.  That  of  the  one  who  was  born  blind, 
chap.  ix. ;  3.  The  resurrection  of  Lazarus,  chap.  xi.  Each  of  these  events, 
instead  of  gaining  for  Jesus  the  faith  of  those  who  are  witnesses  of  it,  be- 
comes in  them  the  signal  of  a  renewed  outbreaking  of  hatred  and  unbe- 
lief. Jesus  has  characterized  this  tragic  result  by  the  reproach,  full  of 
sadness  and  bitterness  (x.  32) :  "I  have  showed  you  many  good  works  from  my 
Father;  for  which  of  them  do  ye  stone  me?"  These  are  the  connecting 
links  of  the  narrative.  Each  one  of  these  miraculous  deeds  is  immedi- 
ately followed  by  a  series  of  conversations  and  discourses  in  connection 
with  the  sign  which  has  given  occasion  for  them  ;  then,  the  discussion  is 
suddenly  interrupted  by  the  voluntary  removal  of  Jesus,  to  begin  again 
in  the  following  visit.  Thus  the  strife  which  is  entered  upon  in  chap,  v., 
on  occasion  of  the  healing  of  the  impotent  man,  is  resumed  in  the  visit 
of  Jesus  at  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  (chaps,  vii.  and  viii.) ;  thus  also,  the 
discourses  which  are  connected  with  the  healing  of  the  one  born  blind  are 
repeated,  in  part,  and  developed  at  the  feast  of  dedication,  in  the  second 
29 


450  SECOND   PAET. 

part  of  chap.  x.  This  arises  from  the  fact  that  Jesus  is  careful,  each  time, 
to  leave  Jerusalem  before  things  have  come  to  the  last  extremity.  Herein 
is  the  reason  why  the  conflict  which  has  broken  out  during  one  visit 
re-echoes  also  in  the  following  one. 

The  following,  therefore,  is  the  arrangement  of  the  narrative  :  First 
cycle :  In  chap,  v.,  the  strife,  which  had  been  vaguely  hinted  at  in  the 
first  verses  of  chap,  iv.,  commences  in  Judea  in  consequence  of  the  healing 
of  the  impotent  man  ;  after  this,  Jesus  withdraws  into  Galileo  and  allows 
the  hatred  of  the  Jews  time  to  become  calm.  But  in  Galilee  also,  He  finds 
unbelief,  only  in  a  different  form.  In  Judea,  they  hate  Him,  they  desire 
to  put  Him  to  death  ;  in  Galilee,  His  discontented  adherents  confine  them- 
selves to  going  away  from  Him  (chap.  vi.).  There  did  not  exist  there  the 
stimulant  of  active  hatred,  jealousy :  unbelief  arose  only  from  the 
carnal  spirit  of  the  people,  whose  aspirations  Jesus  did  not  satisfy.  With 
the  journey  to  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  (chap,  vii.),  the  conflict  begun  in 
chap.  v.  is  resumed  in  Judea,  and  reaches  in  chap.  viii.  its  highest  degree 
of  intensity.  Such  is  the  first  phase  (chaps,  v.-viii.).  Chap.  ix.  opens 
the  second  cycle.  The  healing  of  the  one  born  blind  furnishes  new  food 
for  the  hatred  of  the  adversaries  ;  nevertheless,  in  spite  of  their  growing 
rage,  the  struggle  already  loses  somewhat  of  its  violence,  because  Jesus 
voluntarily  withdraws  from  the  field  of  battle.  Up  to  this  time,  He  had 
sought  to  act  upon  the  hostile  element;  from  this  moment  onward,  He 
gives  it  over  to  itself.  Only,  in  proportion  as  He  breaks  with  the  ancient 
flock,  He  labors  to  recruit  the  new  one.  The  discourses  which  are  con- 
nected with  this  second  phase  extend  as  far  as  the  end  of  chap.  x.  The 
third  cycle  opens  with  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus ;  this  event  brings  to 
its  highest  point  the  rage  of  the  Jews,  and  impels  them  to  an  extreme 
measure  ;  they  formally  decree  the  death  of  Jesus  ;  and,  soon  afterwards, 
His  royal  entrance  into  Jerusalem,  at  the  head  of  His  followers  (chap, 
xii.),  hastens  the  execution  of  this  sentence.  This  last  phase  includes 
chaps,  xi.-xii.  36.  Here  Jesus  completely  abandons  Israel  to  its  blindness, 
and  puts  an  end  to  His  public  ministry :  "And  departing,  He  kid  himself 
from  them."  The  evangelist  pauses  at  this  tragical  moment,  and,  before 
continuing  his  narrative,  he  casts  a  retrospective  glance  on  this  mysterious 
fact  of  the  development  of  Jewish  unbelief,  now  consummated.  He 
shows  that  this  result  had  in  it  nothing  unexpected,  and  he  unveils  the 
profound  causes  of  it :  xii.  37-50. 

Thus  the  dominant  idea  and  the  course  of  this  part,  are  distinctly  out- 
lined— 

1.  v.-viii. :  The  outbreak  of  the  conflict ; 

2.  ix.,  x. :  The  growing  exasperation  of  the  Jews ; 

3.  xi.,  xii. :  The  ripe  fruit  of  this  hatred :  the  sentence  of  death  for 
Jesus. 

The  progress  of  this  narrative  is  purely  historical.  The  attempt,  often 
renewed — even  by  Luthardt — to  arrange  this  part  systematically  according 
to  certain  ideas,  such  as  life,  light  and  love,  is  incompatible  with  this  course 
of  the  narrative  which  is  so  clearly  determined  by  the  facts.    It  is  no  less 


v.  1-xn.  50.  451 

excluded  by  the  following  observations  :  The  idea  of  life,  which,  according 
to  this  system,  must  he  that  of  chaps,  v.  and  vi.,  forms  again  the  hasis  of 
chaps,  x.  and  xi.  In  the  interval  (chaps,  viii.,  ix.),  the  idea  of  light  is  the 
dominant  one.  That  of  love  does  not  appear  till  chap,  xiii.,  and  this  in  an 
entirely  different  part  of  the  Gospel.  Divisions  like  these  proceed  from 
the  laboratory  of  theologians,  but  they  do  not  harmonize  with  the  nature 
of  apostolic  testimony,  the  simple  reflection  of  history.  The  real  teaching 
of  Jesus  had  in  it  nothing  systematic;  the  Lord  confined  Himself  to 
answering  the  given  need,  which  was  for  Him,  at  each  moment,  the  signal  of 
the  Father's  will.  If  in  chap.  v.  He  represents  Himself  as  the  one  who  has 
the  power  to  raise  from  the  dead,  spiritually  and  physically,  it  is  because 
He  has  just  given  life  to  the  limbs  of  an  impotent  man.  If  in  chap,  vi., 
He  declares  Himself  the  bread  of  life,  it  is  because  He  has  just  multiplied 
the  loaves.  If  in  chaps,  vii.  and  viii.,  He  proclaims  Himself  the  living  water 
and  the  light  of  the  world,  it  is  because  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  has  just 
recalled  to  all  minds  the  scenes  of  the  wilderness,  the  water  of  the  rock 
and  the  pillar  of  fire.  We  must  go  with  Baur,  to  the  extent  of  claiming 
that  the  facts  are  invented  in  order  to  illustrate  the  ideas,  or  we  must 
renounce  the  attempt  to  find  a  rational  arrangement  in  the  teachings  of 
which  these  events  are,  each  time,  the  occasion  and  the  text. 

FIRST  CYCLE. 

V.-VIII. 

This  cycle  contains  three  sections : 

1.  Chap.  v.     The  beginning  of  the  conflict  in  Judea; 

2.  Chap.  vi.     The  crisis  of  faith  in  Galilee  ; 

3.  Chaps,  vii.,  viii.  The  renewal  and  continuation  of  the  conflict  in 
Judea. 

From  chap.  v.  to  chap.  viii.  we  must  reckon  a  period  of  seven  or 
eight  months.  Indeed,  if  we  are  not  in  error,  the  event  related  in  chap.  v. 
occurred  at  the  feast  of  Purim,  consequently  in  the  month  of  March. 
The  story  of  the  multiplication  of  the  loaves,  chap,  vi.,  transports  us  to 
the  time  of  the  Passover,  thus  to  April ;  and  ch.  vii.  to  the  feast  of  Taber- 
nacles, thus  to  October.  If  to  this  quite  considerable  period  we  add  some 
previous  months,  which  had  passed  since  the  month  of  December  of  the 
preceding  year,  when  Jesus  had  returned  to  Galilee  (iv.  35),  we  arrive  at  a 
continuous  sojourn  in  that  region  of  nearly  ten  months  (December  to 
October),  which  was  interrupted  only  by  the  short  journey  to  Jerusalem  in 
chap.  v.  It  is  strange  that  of  this  ten  months'  Galilean  activity,  John 
mentions  only  a  single  event:  the  multiplication  of  the  loaves  (chap.  vi.). 
Is  it  not  natural  to  conclude  from  this  silence,  that,  in  this  space  of  time 
left  by  John  as  a  blank,  the  greater  part  of  the  facts  of  the  Galilean  min- 
istry related  by  the  Synoptics  are  to  be  placed.  The  multiplication  of  the 
loaves  is,  as  it  were,  the  connecting  link  between  the  two  narratives. 


452  SECOND   PART. 

FIRST  SECTION. 

V.  1-47. 

First  Outbreak  of  Hatred  in  Judea. 

1.  The  miracle,  occasion  of  the  conflict :  vv.  1-16  ;  2.  The  discourse  of 
Jesus,  commentary  and  defense  of  the  miracle :  vv.  17-47. 

I.— The  miracle:  vv.  1-16. 

Ver.  1.  "  After  these  things,  there  was  a  feast 1  of  the  Jeivs,  and  Jesus  went 
up  to  Jerusalem."  The  connecting  phrase  pera  ravra,  after  these  things,  does 
not  seem  to  us  to  indicate,  notwithstanding  the  examples  cited  by  Meyer, 
as  immediate  a  succession  as  does  fiera  tov-o,  after  this.  Whatever  may  be 
the  feast  to  which  we  refer  the  event  which  is  about  to  be  related,  it  must 
have  been  separated  by  quite  a  long  interval  from  the  previous  return. 
In  fact,  the  feast  which  followed  next  after  that  return  (in  the  course  of 
December),  that  of  the  Dedication,  at  the  end  of  this  month,  cannot  be 
the  one  in  question  here.  Jesus  would  not  have  returned  to  Judea  so  soon 
after  He  had  left  it  for  the  reason  indicated  in  iv.  1.  After  this  came  the 
feast  of  Purim  in  March,  then  that  of  the  Passover  in  April.  If  the  article 
t)  before  topTf],  "  the  feast,"  is  read,  the  meaning  is  not  doubtful ;  the  latter 
feast  is  the  one  in  question  ;  for  it  was  the  principal  one  among  the  Jewish 
festivals,  and  the  one  best  known  to  Greek  readers  (vi.  4).  But  why  should 
such  a  large  number  of  documents  have  omitted  the  article,  if  it  was 
authentic?  We  can  much  more  easily  understand  the  reason  for  its 
addition ;  it  was  supposed  that  the  question  was  precisely  of  the  Passover. 
If  the  article  is  rejected,  not  only  is  there  no  further  evidence  in  favor  of 
this  feast,  but  it  is  even  positively  excluded.  More  than  this,  it  would  be 
excluded  even  with  the  article.  For  why  should  not  John,  who  elsewhere 
names  it  distinctly,  do  the  same  here?  Comp.  ii.  13 ;  vi.  4;  xi.  55,  etc. 
Moreover,  immediately  afterwards,  the  narrative  speaks  to  us,  vi.  4,  of  a 
Passover  during  which  Jesus  remains  in  Galilee.  We  should,  therefore, 
be  obliged  to  suppose  that  between  chaps,  v.  and  vi.  a  whole  year  elapsed, 
of  which  John  does  not  say  a  single  word — a  very  improbable  supposition. 
Besides,  in  chap.  vii.  (vv.  19-24),  Jesus  reverts  to  the  healing  of  the 
impotent  man  which  is  related  in  chap,  v.,  for  the  purpose  of  justifying  it; 
would  He  have  proceeded  thus  with  respect  to  it  after  an  interval  of  more 
than  a  year  ?  Chap.  iv.  (ver.  35)  placed  us  in  the  month  of  December ; 
chap.  vi.  (ver.  4)  points  to  the  month  of  April.  Between  these  two  dates, 
it  is  quite  natural  to  think  of  the  feast  of  Purim,  which  was  celebrated  in 
March.  This  feast  had  reference  to  the  deliverance  of  the  Jews  by  queen 
Esther.     It  was  not,  it  is  true,  of  Divine  institution,  like  the  three  great 

1  T.  R.  reads  eopn)  (a  feast)  with  ABUGK        feast)  is  read  by  X  C  E  F  H  L  M  A  n  50  Mnn. 
BU  V  r  A  Mnn.   Ir.  Or.  Chrys.  and  Tisch.       Cop.  Sah.  some  Fathers,  Tiseh.  (8th  ed.) 
(ed.  ol  1859);  the  article   >>  before  topxTj  (the 


chap.  v.  1.  453 

feasts  ;  but  why  should  this  fact  have  prevented  Jesus  from  going  to  it,  as 
He  did  to  the  feast  of  Dedication  (chap,  x.)  which  was  in  the  same  case? 
And  the  expression  :  a  feast,  is  exactly  explained  by  this  circumstance. 
As  it  was  much  less  known  than  the  others,  outside  of  the  Jewish  people, 
and  as  by  reason  of  its  political  character  it  had  lost  all  importance  for 
the  Christian  Church,  it  was  needless  to  name  it.  Against  this  feast  is 
alleged  that  it  was  not  specially  celebrated  at  Jerusalem.  It  consisted, 
in  fact,  in  the  reading  of  the  book  of  Esther  in  every  synagogue,  and 
at  banquets  which  took  place  throughout  the  country.  But  Jesus  may 
have  gone  to  Judea  at  that  time  with  the  intention  of  remaining  there 
until  the  Passover  feast,  which  was  to  be  celebrated  soon  afterwards.  The 
conlhct  that  occurred  on  occasion  of  the  healing  of  the  impotent  man 
was  that  which  forced  Him  to  return  sooner  to  Galilee.  Although,  there- 
fore, de  Wette  pronounces  his  verdict  by  declaring,  "  that  there  is  not  a 
single  good  reason  to  allege  in  favor  of  the  feast  of  Purim,"  it  appears  to 
me  that  everything  speaks  in  favor  of  this  interpretation,  which  is  that  of 
Hug,  Olshausen,  Wie.seler,  Meyer,  Lange,  Gess,  Weiss,  etc.  Irenazus,  Luther, 
Grotius,  Lampe,  Neander,  Hengstenberg ,  etc.,  decide  in  favor  of  the  Pass- 
over. Ckrysostom,  Calvin,  Bengel,  Hilgenfeld,  etc.,  give  the  preference  to 
Pentecost.  The  absence  of  the  article  and  of  a  precise  designation  speak 
against  the  second  supposition,  as  well  as  against  the  first.  Besides, 
between  v.  1  (Pentecost)  and  vi.  4  (Passover  of  the  following  year),  a 
period  of  more  than  ten  months  would  have  to  be  placed,  respecting 
which  John  kept  complete  silence.  Ebrard,  Ewald,  Lichtemtein,  Riggen- 
bach  (doubtfully),  pronounce  for  the  feast  of  Tabernacles.  This  supposi- 
tion is  quite  as  improbable ;  for  this  feast  is  expressly  named  vii.  2 :  # 
evprf]  to>v  'lovdalwv,  f)  (TKT/voirrjyia.  Why  should  it  not  be  named  here,  as 
well  as  there  ?  Westcott  thinks  of  the  feast  of  trumpets,  on  the  first  of  the 
month  Tisri,  which  opened  the  civil  year  of  the  Hebrews.  It  is  on  this 
day  that  the  Rabbis  fix  the  creation  of  the  world  and  the  last  judgment. 
This  day  was  solemnly  announced  by  the  sound  of  the  sacerdotal  trumpets. 
But  can  we  suppose  that  a  whole  year  elapsed  between  chap.  v.  and  chap, 
vii.,  where  we  find  ourselves  again  in  the  month  of  October?  Liicke,  de 
Wette,  Luthardt,  regard  any  determination  of  the  point  as  impossible. 

This  question  has  more  importance  than  appears  at  the  first  glance.  If 
we  refer  v.  1  to  the  feast  of  Purim,  as  we  believe  we  should,  the  framework 
of  the  history  of  Jesus  is  contracted  :  two  years  and  a  half  are  sufficient 
to  include  all  its  dates  :  ii.  13  Passover  (1st  year) ;  iv.  35,  December  (same 
year) ;  v.  1,  Purim,  March  (2d  year) ;  vi.  4,  Passover  (April) ;  vii.  1,  Taber- 
nacles (October) ;  x.  22,  Dedication  (December) ;  xii.  1,  Passover,  April  (3d 
year).  If,  on  the  other  hand,  v.  1  designates  a  Passover  feast,  or  one  of 
those  which  followed  it  in  the  Jewish  year,  we  are  necessarily  led  to  ex- 
tend the  duration  of  Jesus'  ministry  to  three  years  and  a  half.  Gess  places 
this  journey  of  Jesus  at  the  time  of  the  mission  of  the  Twelve  in  Galilee 
(Matt,  xi.  1 ;  Mark  vi.  7) ;  this  circumstance  would  explain  why  Jesus  re- 
paired to  Judea  alone  or  almost  alone.  This  combination  has  nothing 
impossible  in  it  (see  on  vcr.  13).    Has  not  Beyschlag  good  grounds  for 


454  SECOND  PART. 

alleging  in  favor  of  John's  narrative  the  very  naturally  articulated  course 
of  the  history  of  Jesus  which  appears  in  it :  Judea,  chap.  i. ;  Galilee,  chap, 
ii.a;  Judea,  chap.  ii.b.  iii. ;  Samaria,  chap,  iv.a;  Galilee,  chap,  iv.b;  Judea, 
chap.  v. ;  Galilee,  chap.  vi. ;  Judea,  chap,  x.,  etc.,  in  opposition  to  the 
strongly-marked  contrast,  without  transition,  which  the  Synoptical  nar- 
rative presents :  Galilee,  Judea? 

Ver.  2.  "  Now  there  is  at  Jerusalem,  by1  the  sheep-gate*  a  pool  called3  in 
Hebrew,  Bethesda*  having  five  porches."  The  Sinaitic  MS.  rejects  the  words 
ettI  tt),  by  the,  and  thus  makes  the  adjective  irpofiartKy,  pertaining  to  sheep, 
the  epithet  of  Ko%v{i(ii]ttpa  :  the  reservoir  or  the  pool  for  sheep.  This  reading  is 
too  weakly  supported  to  be  adopted,  even  in  the  view  of  Teschendorf.  We 
must,  therefore,  understand  as  the  substantive  belonging  with  the  adjec- 
tive 7Tpo(3aTiKy,  pertaining  to  sheep,  one  of  the  substantives,  nvkt),  gate,  or 
ayopa,  market.  The  passages  in  Nehemiah,  iii.  1-32;  xii.  39,  where  a  sheep- 
gate  is  mentioned,  favor  the  former  of  these  two  ellipses.  In  Neh.  iii.  3, 
mention  is  made  of  a  fish-gate  as  near  the  preceding;  it  is  probable  that 
these  two  gates  derived  their  names  from  the  adjacent  markets.  The 
sheep-gate  must  have  been  situated  on  the  side  of  the  valley  of  Jehosha- 
phat,  on  the  east  of  the  city.  As  Bovet  says,  "  the  small  cattle  which  en- 
tered Jerusalem  came  there  certainly  by  the  east ;  for  it  is  on  this  side  that 
the  immense  pastures  of  the  wilderness  of  Judea  lie."  Riehm's  Dictionary 
also  says :  "  Even  at  the  present  day,  it  is  through  this  gate  that  the  Bedou- 
ins lead'their  flocks  to  Jerusalem  for  sale."  The  sheep-gate,  as  Hengsten- 
berg  observes,  according  to  Neh.  xii.  39,  40,  must  have  been  quite  near  the 
Temple ;  for  it  is  from  this  that,  in  the  ceremony  of  the  inauguration  of 
the  walls,  the  cortege  of  priests  entered  immediately  into  the  sacred  in- 
closure.  The  gate,  called  at  the  present  day  St.  Stephen's,  at  the  north- 
east angle  of  the  Haram,  answers  to  these  data.  M.  de  Saulcy  {Voyage  au- 
tour  de  la  mer  Morte,  t.  II.  pp.  367,  368)  holds,  according  to  some  passages 
of  St.  Jerome  and  of  authors  of  the  Middle  Ages,  that  there  were  in  this 
place  two  neighboring  pools,  and  supplying,  in  thought,  Kokvfi^pa,  he  ex- 
plains :  "  Near  the  sheep-pool,  there  is  the  pool  called  Bethesda."  In  spite  of 
the  triumphant  tone  5  with  which  this  explanation  is  proposed,  it  is  inad- 
missible. The  expression  of  the  evangelist,  thus  understood,  would  sup- 
pose this  alleged  sheep-pool,  which  is  nowhere  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, to  be  known  to  his  Greek  readers.  Meyer,  accepting  the  reading  of 
the  Sinaitic  MS.  to  leyd/isvov  ippaiari  Brid^a&a,  explains:  "  There  is  near  the 
sheep-pool  the' place  called  in  Hebrew,  Bethzatha."    But  a  place  so  com- 

1  Instead  of  cm,  ADGL  read  ev.  have  made  incredible  efforts  to  understand 

*  X  Vulgalii.  some  Mnn.  reject  en-i  tjj.  Syrcl«.  this  verse  ....  They  have  all  been  equally 
Syr**.  Cyr.  omiten-t  tjj  Trpo^ariKT).  happy  in  their  suppositions  ;  it  was  the  word 

*  Instead  of  t)  eiriXeyonti'rj,  X  reads  to  A<yo-  KoAvnj3>j0pa  which  needed  to  be  understood, 
ptvov,  D  V  Mnn.  Aeyojuei").  and  all  became  clear."    M.  de  Saulcy  holds 

*  Instead  of  Brjfleo-Sa,  XL  1  Mnn.  read  Btj9-  that,  according  to  Brocardus,  the  second  pool 
£o.Ga  Eus.  BrtiaOa,  B.  Vulg.  BrjflcxaiSa,  D  BeA-  was  situated  west  of  the  first.  But  the  pafv 
£*9a.  sage  quoted  would  rather  prove  that  it  must 

5 The  following  are  his  expressions  :  "  It  is       have  been  to  the  north. 
Tery  curious  to  see  how  the  commentators 


chap.  v.  2.  455 

pletely  unknown  as  the  sheep-pool  could  not  be  indicated  as  a  determin- 
ing-point to  Greek  readers.  The  feminine  ixovaa  which  follows  is,  besides, 
hardly  favorable  to  this  reading,  which  is  only  an  awkward  correction, 
like  so  many  others  which  are  met  with  in  this  manuscript.  Weiss  makes 
KoTivfijiijOpa,  a  dative,  and  thinks  that  the  best  subject  to  be  supplied  is  oiKia, 
the  building  Bethesda ;  this  ellipsis  seems  to  me  very  unnatural.  Bengcl 
and  Lange  have  concluded  from  the  present  ecti,  there  is,  that  the  Gospel 
was  written  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  But  this  present  may 
be  inspired  by  the  vividness  of  recollection.  Besides,  an  establishment  of 
this  kind  belongs  to  the  nature  of  the  place  and  may  survive  a  catastro- 
phe. Tobler  {Denkbldtter,  pp.  53  ff.),  has  proved  that,  in  the  fifth  century, 
the  porches  here  spoken  of  were  still  pointed  out.  Hengstenberg  concludes 
from  the  t-ni,upon,  in  the  word  k-rri'keyofikvri,  "swrnamed,"  that  the  pool  bore 
also  another  name.  But  it  is  more  simple  to  suppose  that  John  regards 
the  word  pool  as  the  name,  and  Bethcsda  as  the  surname.  The  expression  : 
in  Hebrew,  denotes  the  Aramaic  dialect,  which  had  become  the  popular 
language  since  the  return  from  the  captivity.  The  most  natural  etymology 
of  the  word  Bethesda  is  certainly  bcth-cheseda,  house  of  mercy,  whether  this 
name  alludes  to  the  munificence  of  some  pious  Jew  who  had  had  these 
porches  constructed  to  shelter  the  sick,  or  whether  it  refers  to  the 
goodness  of  God,  from  which  this  healing  spring  proceeded.  Delitzsch  has 
supposed  that  the  etymology  may  be  beth-estaw  (VDDX)  peristyle.  Beth-As- 
chada  (Nt^N)  place  of  outpouring  (of  the  blood  of  victims),  has  also  been 
thought  of.  The  Alexandrian  and  Greco-Latin  variants  are  only  gross 
corruptions  (see  those  of  B  and  D).  It  might  be  supposed  that  these 
porches  were  five  isolated  buildings,  arranged  in  a  circle  around  the  pool. 
But  it  is  more  simple  to  imagine  a  single  edifice,  forming  a  pentagonal 
peristyle,  in  the  centre  of  which  was  the  reservoir.  There  are  still  known 
at  the  present  day,  in  the  eastern  part  of  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  some 
springs  of  mineral  water;  among  others,  on  the  west  of  the  inclosure  of 
the  Temple,  in  the  Mahometan  quarter,  the  baths  of  A'in-es-Schefa  (Ritter, 
16th  part,  p.  387).  Tobler  has  proved  that  this  spring  is  fed  by  the  large 
chamber  of  water  situated  under  the  mosque  which  has  replaced  the  tem- 
ple. Another  better  known  spring  is  found  at  the  foot  of  the  southeastern 
slope  of  Moriah  ;  it  is  called  the  Virgin-spring.  We  have  two  principal  ac- 
counts respecting  this  pond,  those  of  Tobler  and  Robimon.  The  spring  is 
very  intermittent.  The  basin  is  sometimes  entirely  dry  ;  again,  the  water 
is  seen  springing  up  between  the  stones.  On  the  21st  of  January, 
184o,  Tobler  saw  the  water  rise  four  and  a  half  inches,  with  a  gentle  un- 
dulation. On  the  14th  of  March,  it  rose  for  more  than  twenty  minutes 
to  the  height  of  six  or  seven  inches,  and  in  two  minutes  sank  again  to  its 
previous  level.  Robinson  saw  the  water  rise  a  foot  in  five  minutes.  A 
woman  assured  him  that  this  movement  is  repeated  at  certain  times, 
two  or  three  times  a  day,  but  that  in  summer  it  is  often  observed  only 
once  in  two  or  three  days.  These  phenomena  present  a  certain  analogy 
to  what  is  related  of  the  spring  of  Bethesda.  Eusebius  also  speaks  of 
springs  existing  in  this  locality  whose  water  was  reddish.     This  color, 


456  SECOND   PART. 

which  evidently  arises  from  mineral  elements,  was,  according  to  him,  due 
to  the  infiltration  of  the  blood  of  victims.  Tradition  places  the  pool  of 
Bethesda  in  a  great  square  hollow,  surrounded  by  walls  and  situated  to 
the  north  of  the  Haram,  southward  of  the  street  which  leads  from  St. 
Stephen's  gate.  It  is  called  Birket-Israil ;  it  has  a  depth  of  about  twenty- 
one  meters,  a  breadth  of  about  forty,  and  a  length  more  than  twice  as 
great.  The  bottom  is  dry,  filled  with  grass  and  shrubs.  Robinson  supposed 
that  it  was  a  fosse,  formerly  belonging  to  the  fortifications  of- the  citadel 
of  Antonia.  This  supposition  is  rejected  by  several  competent  authori- 
ties. However  this  may  be,  Bethesda  must  have  been  nearly  in  this  local- 
ity, for  it  is  here  that  the  sheep-gate  (see  above)  was  situated.  As  it  is  im- 
possible to  identify  the  pool  of  Bethesda  with  any  one  of  the  thermal 
springs  of  which  we  have  just  spoken,  it  must  have  been  covered  with 
debris,  or  have  disappeared,  as  happens  so  frequently  with  intermittent 
fountains.  The  springs  which  are  found  at  the  present  day  merely  prove 
how  favorable  the  soil  is  to  this  kind  of  phenomena.1 

Vv.  3,  4.  "  In  these  porches  lay  a  great  number  of  sick  persons,  blind,  lame, 
withered,2  [waiting  for  the  movement  of  the  water.3  4.  For  an  angel  descended 
from  time  to  time  into  the  pool  and  troubled  the  water ;  whosoever  then  first 
entered  in  after  the  troubling  of  the  water,  was  healed  of  whatever  disease  he 
had]."*  The  spectacle  which  this  portico  surrounding  the  pool  presented 
is  reproduced  in  some  sort  de  visu  by  Bovet,  describing  the  baths  of  Ibra- 
him, near  Tiberias:  "The  hall  where  the  spring  is  found  is  surrounded 
by  several  porticos,  in  which  we  see  a  multitude  of  people  crowded  one 
upon  another,  laid  upon  pallets  or  rolled  in  blankets,  with  lamentable 

expressions  of  misery  and  suffering The  pool  is  of  white  marble, 

of  circular  form  and  covered  by  a  cupola  supported  by  columns ;  the 
basin  is  surrounded  on  the  interior  by  a  bench  onAvhich  persons  may  sit." 
Sr/poi,  impotent,  properly  denotes  those  who  have  some  member  affected 
with  atrophy,  or,  according  to  the  common  expression,  wasting  away.  The 
end  of  ver.  3  and  the  4th  verse  are  wanting  in  the  larger  part  of  the  Alex- 
andrian MSS.,  and  are  rejected  by  Teschendorf  Liicke,  Tholuck,  Olshausen, 
Meyer.  The  large  number  of  variants  and  the  indications  of  doubt  by 
which  this  passage  is  marked  in  several  MSS.,  favor  the  rejection.  The 
defenders  of  the  authenticity  of  the  passage,  for  example  Reuss,  explain 
the  omission  of  it  by  the  Alexandrian  authorities  by  a  dogmatic  antipa- 
thy which,  they  hold,  betrayed  itself  in  the  similar  omission  Luke  xxii. 

1  Josephus  Bell.  Jud.  (not  Antiqq.,  as  Meyer  inclusively.    This  ending  is  read  in  PITA 

says  through  an  error),  x.  5.  4,  speaks  of  two  A  n  and  nine  other  Mjj.  Mnn.   It,  Syr**, 
pools  called  Strouthinn  and  Amytidalon ;  the  *The  whole  of  ver.  4  is  rejected  by  NBC 

former  near  the.  citadel    of  Antonia  on  the  T)  It»lii  Syr™r  Sah.  some  Mnn.     Besides  this, 

northwest  of  the   temple;  the  latter  at   the  the  text  presents  in  the  other  MSS.  an  cxcop- 

north  of  the  temple.     Bethesda  must  have  tional  number  of  variants ;   instead  of  yap: 

been  situated  not  far  from  these,  towards  the  xai  (L   [tnl|i) ;    instead   of  ayyeAos  :    ayyeAos 

northeast  comer.  kvplov  (A  K  L  It«l|<»  Vnlg.  30  Mnn.) ;  instead  of 

'  D  a  b  add  to  f rjotor  ;  napaXvriKotv.  KaTtfiaivev  :    eAovero    (A    K   n) :     instead   of 

'KABCL  Syr™'  Sah.  some  Mnn.  omit  the  trapaaae  :  eT<xpa<r<reTo  (several  Mjj.) ;  etc. 
ending  of  ver.  3  from  eK&ex.0lJ■*l'0^'  (waiting) 


chap.  v.  3-7.  457 

43,  44  (the  appearance  of  the  angel  at  Gethsemane).  This  supposition 
would  not,  by  any  means,  apply  either  to  the  Sinaitic  MS.,  which  has  the 
passage  in  Luke  entire,  or  to  the  Alexandrian  which,  in  our  passage,  reads 
the  fourth  verse.  The  Vatican  MS.,  alone  presents  the  two  omissions 
together;  which  evidently  is  not  enough  to  justify  the  suspicion  expressed 
above.  I  held  with  Ewald,  in  my  earlier  editions,  that  the  true  reading 
is  the  one  presented  hy  the  Cambridge  MS.,  and  by  numerous  MSS.  of  the 
Itala,  which  preserve  the  close  of  ver.  3  while  omitting  the  whole  of  ver. 
4.  The  words  :  waiting  for  the  movement  of  the  water,  if  they  are  authentic, 
may  indeed  easily  have  occasioned  the  gloss  of  ver.  4.  And  ver.  7  seems 
to  demand,  in  what  precedes,  something  like  the  last  words  of  ver.  3. 
Still  it  seems  to  me  difficult  to  understand  what  should  have  occasioned 
the  omission  of  these  words  in  so  large  a  number  of  documents,  if  they 
had  originally  formed  part  of  the  text.  I  am  inclined,  therefore,  to  hold 
with  Weiss,  Keil,  etc.,  that  they,  as  well  as  ver.  4,  were  added.  The  whole 
was  at  first  written  on  the  margin  by  a  copyist;  then  this  marginal  re- 
mark was  introduced  into  the  text,  as  is  observed  in  so  many  cases.  This 
interpolation  must  be  very  ancient,  for  it  is  found  already  in  one  of  the 
Syriac  Versions  (  Syr"ch),  and  Tertullian  seems  to  allude  to  it  (de  Bapt.,  c.  5). 
It  was  the  expression  of  the  popular  opinion  respecting  the  periodical 
movement  of  the  water.  According  to  the  authentic  text,  there  is  nothing 
supernatural  in  the  phenomenon  of  Bethesda.  The  whole  is  reduced  to 
the  intermittence  which  is  so  frequently  observed  in  thermal  waters.  It 
is  known  that  these  waters  have  the  greatest  efficacy  at  the  moment  when 
they  spring  up,  set  in  ebullition  by  the  increased  action  of  the  gas,  and  it 
was  at  this  moment  that  each  sick  person  tried  to  be  the  first  to  feel  its 
influence.  Hengstenberg ,  who  admits  the  intervention  of  the  angel, 
extends  the  same  explanation  to  all  thermal  waters.  But  it  would  be 
necessary,  in  this  case,  to  hold  a  singular  exaggeration  in  the  terms  of  ver. 
4.  For  after  all  no  mineral  water  instantaneously  heals  the  sick  and  all 
the  kinds  of  maladies  which  are  here  mentioned. 

Vv.  5-7.  "  TJiere  was  a  man  there,1  held  by  his 2  sickness  for  thirty-eight 
years.  6.  When  Jesus  saw  him  lying,3  and  knew  that  he  had  been  already 
sick  for  a  long  time,  he  said  unto  him  :  Dost  thou  wish  to  be  healed?  7.  The 
sick  man  answered  him:  Sir*  I  have  no  one,  when  the  weder  is  troubled, 
to  put'6  me  into  the  pool ;  and  while  I  am  coming,  another  goes  down  be- 
fore me."  The  long  continuance  of  the  malady  is  mentioned,  either  to 
set  forth  how  inveterate  and  difficult  to  heal  it  was,  or  rather,  according 
to  ver.  6,  to  explain  the  profound  compassion  with  which  Jesus  was  moved 
on  beholding  this  unhappy  man.  '~Exuv  might  he  taken  in  the  intransi- 
tive sense  (aodevijc  ixeiv)'\  but  the  construction  is  so  similar  to  that  of  ver. 
6,  where  xp^ov  is  the  object  of  !#«,  that  it  is  preferable  to  make  etti  the 

1  X  alone  omits  e«ei.  *K  F  G  H  Syr*'11  some  Mnn.  read  vot  (yes) 

8XBCDL  Itpi«>i  some  Mnn.  read  (after  before  xvpie. 

aaflfveia)  avrov,  which  is  omitted  by  T.  R.  6 T.  R.  reads 0aAAi)  with  some  Mud.  only; 

with  A  I  r  A  A  II  and  9  other  Mjj.  all  the  Mjj.  read  /3aArj. 

8K  alone  reads  avaxeinevov. 


458  SECOND   PART. 

object  of  Ix^v :  "  Having  thirty-eight  years  in  this  condition  of  sickness." 
One  has  what  one  suffers.  It  is  not  necessary  to  connect  lxuv  closely 
with  Tjv  ekeI,  as  if  John  meant  to  say  that  the  sick  person  had  been  there 
for  thirty-eight  years. 

Jesus  appears  here  suddenly,  as  it  were  coining  forth  from  a  sort  of 
incognito.  What  a  difference  between  this  arrival  without  eclat  and  His  en- 
trance into  the  Temple  at  the  first  Passover,  ii.  13  ff. !  Here  it  is  no  longer 
the  Messiah ;  it  is  a  simple  pilgrim.  Meyer  translates  yvovg :  having  learned, 
as  if  Jesus  had  received  information.  Weiss  thinks  that  he  heard  the  fact 
from  the  lips  of  the  sick  man  himself.  This  meaning  is  possible ;  yvovq 
may,  however,  indicate  one  of  those  instantaneous  perceptions  by  which 
the  truth  revealed  itself  to  Jesus  in  the  degree  which  was  demanded  by 
His  task  at  the  moment.  Comp.  i.  49 ;  iv.  17.  The  14th  verse  will  show 
that  the  entire  life  of  the  sick  man  is  present  to  the  view  of  Jesus.  The 
long  time  recalls  the  thirty-eight  years  of  ver.  5  :  in  this  way  is  the  iden- 
tity of  construction  explained.  The  feast  of  Purim  was  celebrated 
among  the  Jews  by  works  of  beneficence  and  mutual  gifts.  It  was  the 
day  of  largesses.  On  Purim-day,  said  a  Jew,  nothing  is  refused  to  chil- 
dren. Jesus  enters  into  the  spirit  of  the  feast,  as  He  does  also  in  chaps, 
vi.  and  vii.,  as  regards  the  rites  of  the  feasts  of  the  Passover  and  of  Taber- 
nacles. His  compassion,  awakened  by  the  sight  of  this. man  lying  ill 
and  abandoned  {lying  on  a  couch),  and  by  the  inward  contemplation  of  the 
life  of  suffering  which  had  preceded  this  moment  {already),  impels  him  to 
bestow  largess  also  and  spontaneously  to  accomplish  for  him  a  work  of 
mercy.  His  question:  "  Dost  thou  ivish  to  be  healed  f"  is  an  implicit 
promise.  Jesus  endeavors  thus,  as  Lange  says,  to  draw  the  sick  man  from 
the  dark  discouragement  in  which  this  long  and  useless  waiting  had 
plunged  him,  and  to  reanimate  hope  within  him.  At  the  same  time,  Je- 
sus by  means  of  this  question  wishes  to  turn  away  His  thought  from  the 
means  of  healing  on  which  it  was  exclusively  fixed,  and  to  give  him  a 
perception  of  a  new  means,  the  living  being  who  is  to  become  for  him 
the  true  Bethesda.  Comp.  the  similar  words  of  Peter  to  the  impotent 
man,  Acts  iii.  4:  "  Look  on  vjs."  Faith,  awakened  by  his  look  fixed  upon 
Him  who  is  speaking  to  him, will  be,  as  it  were,  the  channel  through 
which  the  force  from  above  will  penetrate  within  him.  The  answer  of  the 
sick  man  does  not  imply  the  authenticity  of  ver.  4,  nor  even  necessarily 
that  of  the  end  of  ver.  3.  It  is  sufficiently  explained  by  the  fact,  known 
or  easy  to  understand,  of  the  intermittent  ebullition  of  the  spring.  We 
see  by  the  words :  I  have  no  one,  that  he  was  solitary  and  poor. 

Vv.  S,  9.  "  Jesus  sailh  unto  him  :  Arise,1  take  tip  thy  bed,2  and  ivalle.  9.  And 
immediately*  the  man  was  healed,4,  and  he  took  up  his  bed,  and  walked.  Now 
that  day  was  a  Sabbath."  The  word  npapflarog  comes  from  the  Macedonian 
dialect  {Passow) ;  it  is  written  in  different  ways.  The  imperfect  he  walked 
dramatically  paints  the  joy  in  the  recovered  power. 

1  T.  R.  roads  eyctpai  with  U  V  T  A  Man. ;  17  Mjj.:  xpafiaTTov ;  X  :  Kpaj3a/cToi' ;  E:  KpafiaTOV. 
the  rest:  eyeipe.  '((D  only  omit  eufows. 

«  T.  B.  with  V  and  several  Mun. :  KpaPParov  ;  *  K  It""*  add  here  k«u  TjyepJij  {and  arose).    , 


chap.  v.  8-15.  459 

Vv.  10-13.  "  The  Jews  therefore  said  unto  him  who  had  been  healed:  It  is 
the  Sabbath ;  it  is  not  lawful  for  thee  to  carry  thy  bed.  11.  He  answered 1  them  : 
He  that  heeded  me  said  unto  me :  Take  up  thy  bed,  and  walk.'2  12.  They  asked 
him  therefore :  who  is  the  man  wlio  said  unto  thee :  Take  up  thy  bed  and  walkf 
13.  But  he  that  ivas  healed s  knew  not  who  it  was  ;  for  Jesus  had  disappeared  *• 
as  there  was  a  multitude  in  the  place."*  The  act  of  carrying  his  bed  seemed 
to  the  Jews  a  violation  of  the  Sabbath  rest.  The  Rabbis  distinguished 
three  sorts  of  works  interdicted  on  the  Sabbath,  among  them  that  of  carry- 
ing a  piece  of  furniture.  The  Rabbinical  statute  also  prohibited  treating 
a  sick  person  medically,  and  perhaps  the  term  TeOepanevfihoq  {cared  for, 
treated),  contains  an  allusion  to  this  other  no  less  heavy  grievance.  But 
the  fault  of  the  Jews  was  in  identifying  the  rabbinical  explanation  of  the 
fourth  commandment  with  its  real  meaning.  The  sick  man  very  logically 
places  his  action  under  the  protection  of  Him  who  miraculously  has  given 
him  the  power  to  perform  it.  The  question  of  the  Jews  (ver.  12)  is  very 
characteristic.  It  is  reproduced  with  much  accuracy  and  nicety.  They 
do  not  ask  :  "Who  healed  thee  ?"  The  fact  of  the  miracle,  though  sur- 
prising enough,  affects  them  very  slightly.  But  the  contravention  of  their 
Sabbatic  statute,  this  is  what  is  worthy  of  attention.  Here  is,  indeed,  the 
spirit  of  the  'lovdaloi  (ver.  10).  The  aorist  ladeic  (healed),  differing  from  teOe- 
paTTEVjiEvog  (cared  for),  sets  forth  prominently  the  moment  when  the  sick 
man,  having  gained  the  consciousness  of  his  cure,  looked  about  for  His 
benefactor  without  being  able  to  find  Him.  The  reading  adopted  by 
Tischendorf  (6  aodsvuv)  has  no  intrinsic  value,  and  is  not  sufficiently  sus- 
tained. The  design  of  Jesus  in  withdrawing  so  speedily  was  to  avoid  the 
noise  and  the  nocking  together  of  a  multitude ;  He  feared  the  carnal 
enthusiasm  which  His  miracles  were  exciting.  But  it  does  not  follow  from 
this,  that  the  last  words  :  "  as  there  was  a  croivd  in  the  place,"  are  intended 
to  express  this  motive.  They  rather  set  forth,  as  Hengstenberg  thinks,  the 
possibility  of  escape.  Jesus  had  easily  disappeared  in  the  midst  of  the 
crowd  which  was  thronging  the  place.  This  is,  undoubtedly,  the  meaning 
which  the  reading  of  the  Sinaitic  MS.  is  designed  to  express:  kv  fitcu  (in  the 
midst,  of)  ;  it  is  inadmissible,  as  well  as  the  other  variant  of  the  same  MS. 
in  this  verse  (evevoev). — 'Ekvevu,  strictly  :  to  make  a  motion  of  the  head  in  order 
to  avoid  a  blow,  hence  :  to  escape.  The  aorist  has  certainly  here  the  sense 
of  the  pluperfect  (against  Meyer  and  Weiss).  From  this  slight  detail,  Cess 
concludes  that  Jesus  was  not  accompanied  by  His  disciples  in  this  visit  to 
Jerusalem,  and  that  they  were  at  this  time  accomplishing  their  mission 
in  Galilee. 

Vv.  14,  15.  "Afterward,  Jesus' finds  him6  in  the  temple  and  said  to  him: 
Behold,  tlwu  art  made  whole  ;  sin  no  more,  lest  a  worse  thing  befall  tliee.    15.  The 

'  Instead  of  aireicpiflij,  AB:os««(CGKL  with  D  It.*  only. 

A  :  o  Se)  aTreKpidr) ;  X :  o  Se  aneKpifaTo.  4  X  D  read  tvtvatv  (made  a  sign)  instead  of 

1  Instead  of  apov  and  7repi7roTet,  X  reads  in  tfcvtvatv. 

this  verse  and  the  following  apai  and   ncpi-  5  X  alone:  ne<ru  instead  of  toiho 

traTfii/.     X  B  C  L  omit  rof  Kpa0/9aTO>'  <rov.  6X  tiyr1""  tov  TeBepairtv^evov  instead  of  avrov. 

*  Instead  of  ladeis,  Tisch.  reads    aaOtvwv 


460  SECOND   PART. 

man  went  away  and  told 1  the  Jews  that  it  was  Jesus  who  had  healed  him."  The 
sick  man  had,  undoubtedly,  come  into  the  temple  to  pray  or  offer  a  thank- 
offering.  The  warning  which  Jesus  addresses  to  him  certainly  implies  that 
his  malady  had  been  the  effect  of  some  particular  sin ;  but  we  need  not 
infer  from  this  that  every  malady  results  from  an  individual  and  special 
sin ;  it  may  have  as  its  cause,  in  many  cases,  the  debasement  of  the  col- 
lective life  of  humanity  by  means  of  sin  (see  on  ix.  3).  By  something 
worse  than  thirty-eight  years  of  suffering,  Jesus  can  scarcely  mean  any- 
thing but  damnation. 

In  the  revelation  which  the  impotent  man  gives  to  the  Jews,  we  need 
not  see  either  a  communication  dictated  by  thankfulness  and  the  desire  to 
bring  the  Jews  to  faith  (Chrysostom,  Grotius,  etc.),  nor  an  ill-disposed  denun- 
ciation (Schleiermacher;  Lange),  nor  an  act  of  obedience  to  the  Jewish 
authorities  (Liicke,  de  Wette,  Luthardt),  nor,  finally,  the  bold  desire  of 
making  known  to  them  a  power  superior  to  their  own  (Meyer).  It  is  quite 
simply  the  reply  which  he  was  .not  able  to  give,  at  ver.  13,  and  which  he 
now  gives  to  discharge  his  own  responsibility ;  for  he  remained  himself 
under  the  complaint  so  long  as  he  could  not  refer  it  to  the  author  of  the 
act,  and  this  violation  of  the  Sabbath  might  draw  upon  him  the  penalty 
of  death  (vv.  16,  18);  comp.  Num.,  xv.  35. 

Ver.  16.  "For  this  cause  did  the  Jeivs  persecide  Jesus,2  because  he  did  these 
things  an  the  Sabbath  day."  Am  tovto  (for  this  cause),  resumes  what  precedes, 
and,  at  the  same  time,  is  explained  by  the  phrase  which  closes  the  verse : 
because  .  .  .  The  word  diuneiv  (persecute),  indicates  the  seeking  of  the 
means  to  injure.  In  favor  of  the  authenticity  of  the  following  words  in 
the  T.  R. :  and  they  sought  to  kill  him,  the  nallov  {yet  more),  of  ver.  18,  can 
be  alleged.  But  it  is  still  more  probable  that  it  is  these  words  in  ver.  18 
which  have  occasioned  this  interpolation.  The  imperfect  tnoiei  (He  did), 
malignantly  expresses  the  idea  that  the  violation  of  the-Sabbath  has  hence- 
forth passed  with  Him  into  a  rule :  He  is  accustomed  to  do  it.  This  idea 
is  entirely  lost  in  the  inaccurate  translation  of  Ostervald  and  of  Rilliet : 
"  because  He  Iiad  done  this."  The  plural  ravra  (these  things),  refers  to 
the  double  violation  of  the  Sabbath,  the  healing  and  the  bearing  of  the 
burden. 

Let  us  notice  here  two  analogies  between  John  and  the  Synoptics :  1.  In 
the  latter  also,  Jesus  is  often  obliged  to  perform  His  miracles  as  it  were 
by  stealth,  and  even  to  impose  silence  on  those  whom  He  has  healed. 
2.  It  is  on  occasion  of  the  Sabbatic  healings  wrought  in  Galilee,  that, 
according  to  them  also,  the  conflict  breaks  out  (Luke  vi.  1-11). 

II.  Tfie  discourse  of  Jesus  :   vv.  17-47. 

In  this  discourse  which  is  designed  to  vindicate  the  act  which  He  ha3 
just  performed,  the  three  following  thoughts  are  developed  : 

1  Instead  of  avi)yyei.\e,D  G  U  A  20  Mnn.  read  vai  with  12  Mjj.;  the  larger  part  of  the  Mnn.  ; 
awriyyeiAe;  K  0  L  Syr  Cop  eurey.  It2;  SyrMl>.    These  words  are  omitted  in  X  B 

8  T.  It.  adds  here  k<h  c^ijtovv  avrov  airoxTei-       C  D  L  ItP*«H«oj  Vulg. ;   Syrcu»;  Cop. 


chap.  v.  16,  17.  461 

1.  Jesus  justifies  His  work  by  the  perfect  subordination  which  exists  be- 
tween His  activity  and  that  of  His  Father :  vv.  17-30. 

2.  The  reality  of  this  relation  does  not  rest  solely  on  the  personal 
affirmation  of  Jesus;  it  has  as  its  guarantee  the  testimony  of  God  Himself  : 
vv.  31-40. 

3.  Supported  by  this  testimony  of  the  Father,  Jesus  passes  from  defense 
to  attack  and  unveils  to  the  Jews  the  moral  cause  of  their  unbelief,  the 
absence  of  the  true  spirit  of  the  law  :  vv.  41-47. 

I.  The  Son  the  Father's  workman :  vv.  17-30. 

Ver.  17.  "  Jesus  answered  them:  My  Father  worketh  until  now,  and  I  work." 
The  aorist  middle  hvciKpivaro  is  found  only  here  and  in  ver.  19;  perhaps 
also  xii.  23.  Its  use  may  be  occasioned  by  the  personal,  apologetic  char- 
acter of  the  following  discourse.  This  utterance,  like  that  of  ii.  19  (comp. 
Luke  ii.  49),  is  like  a  flash  of  light  breaking  forth  from  the  inmost  depths 
of  the  consciousness  of  Jesus,  from  the  point  of  mysterious  union  where 
He  inwardly  receives  the  Father's  impulse.  These  sudden  and  immeasur- 
ably profound  outbreakings  of  thought  distinguish  the  language  of  Jesus 
from  all  other  language. 

These  words  are  ordinarily  explained  in  this  sense  :  "  My  Father  works 
continually  (that  is  without  allowing  Himself  to  stop  on  the  Sabbath), 
and,  for  myself,  I  work  in  the  same  way,  without  being  bound  by  the  legal 
statute ;  "  either  in  that  this  declaration  is  applied  to  the  work  of  God  in 
the  preservation  of  the  universe,  when  once  the  creation  is  finished, 
(Reuss),  or  in  that  it  is  referred  to  the  work  of  the  salvation  of  humanity, 
which  admits  of  no  interruption  {Meyer).  In  both  cases,  Jesus  would 
affirm  that  He  is  no  more  subjected,  as  a  man,  to  the  obligation  of  the 
Sabbatic  rest,  than  is  God  Himself.  But  if  this  were,  indeed,  His  thought, 
He  would  not  have  said  :  until  this  very  hour  (eug  apn),  but  always,  continu- 
ally (aei).  This  objection  is  the  more  serious,  because,  according  to  the 
position  of  the  words,  this  adverb  of  time,  and  not  the  verb,  has  the 
emphasis.  Then,  in  the  second  member  of  the  sentence,  Jesus  could  not 
have  refrained  from  either  repeating  the  adverb  or  substituting  for  it  the 
word  o/zot'wf,  in  the  same  way  ;  "And  I  also  work  continually,  or  likewise." 
Besides,  it  would  have  been  very  easy  to  answer  to  this  argument  that 
the  position  of  a  man  with  regard  to  the  Sabbatic  commandment  is  not 
the  same  with  that  of  God.  Finally  tho  declaration  of  Jesus,  thus  under- 
stood, would  contradict  the  attitude  of  submission  to  the  law  which  He 
constantly  observed  during  His  life.  Born  a  Jew,  He  lived  as  a  faithful 
Jew.  He  emancipated  Himself,  undoubtedly,  from  the  yoke  of  human 
commandments  and  Pharisaic  traditions,  but  never  from  that  of  tho  law 
itself.  It  is  impossible  to  prove  in  tho  life  of  Jesus  a  single  contravention 
of  a  truly  legal  prescription.  Death  alone  freed  Him  from  this  yoke. 
Such  is  the  impression  width  He  left,  that  St.  Paul  says  of  Him  (Gal.  iv. 
4) :  "  born  under  the  law,"  and  characterizes  His  whole  life  by  the  expres- 
sion (Rom.  xv.  8) :  "minister  of  the  circumcision."    Lutfuirdt  has  fully  per- 


462  SECOND   PART. 

ceived  the  special  sense  which  the  adverb  eug  apn,  until  this  hour,  must 
have.  He  has  had  the  idea  of  contrasting  it,  not  with  the  Sabbatic  insti- 
tution, but  with  the  final  Sabbath  yet  to  come  :  "  Since  up  to  this  time  the 
work  of  salvation  has  not  been  consummated,  as  it  will  be  in  the  future 
Sabbath,  and  consequently  my  Father  works  still,  I  also  work."  This 
sense  is  certainly  much  nearer  to  the  thought  of  Jesus;  only  the  antithe- 
sis between  the  present  Sabbath  and  the  Sabbath  to  come  is  not  indicated 
by  anything  in  the  text. 

To  apprehend  thoroughly  the  meaning  of  this  utterance,  let  us  for  a 
moment  set  aside  the  words  eug  apn,  until  this  hour.  Jesus  says :  "  My 
Father  works,  and  I  also  work."  The  relation  between  these  two  propo- 
sitions is  obvious.  We  easily  understand  that  it  is  necessary  to  combine 
logically  what  is  grammatically  in  juxtaposition,  and  that  it  is  as  if  it 
were :  "  Since  my  Father  works,  I  also  work."  The  Son  cannot  remain 
idle  when  the  Father  is  working.  We  find  again  here  that  paratactic 
construction  which  is  conformed  to  the  genius  of  the  Hebrew  language, 
and  which  expresses  by  the  simple  copula,  and,  one  of  the  numerous 
logical  relations  which  the  genius  of  the  Greek  states  with  precision  by 
means  of  some  other  conjunction;  comp.  i.  10,  ii.  9,  etc.  Nothing  is 
changed  in  this  relation  by  the  addition  of  the  adverb  eo>c  apn,  until  this 
hour.  The  meaning  becomes  the  following  :  "  Since  my  Father  works  up 
to  this  moment,  I  also  work."  Passow,  in  his  Dictionary,  remarks  that  in 
Greek,  especially  in  the  later  writers,  apn  following  nai,  as  is  the  case  here, 
serves  to  indicate  the  immediate  and  rapid  succession  of  two  states;  thus 
in  this  sentence  :  apn  a-KeipyaoTo  to  aa/ia  nal  cnvf/Adsv  (the  song  was  no  sooner 
finished  than  he  departed).  This  is  precisely  the  relation  of  immediate 
succession  which  Jesus  affirms  here  as  the  law  of  His  activity,  as  the  true 
relation  between  His  Father's  work  and  His  own,  from  which  He  draws 
the  justification  of  the  miracle  which  had  been  made  the  subject  of  in- 
crimination. Westcott,  Weiss  and  Keil  are  unwilling  to  see  here  an  idea  of 
subordination ;  they  claim  that  the  work  of  the  Son  is  much  rather  co-or- 
dinated with  that  of  the  Father.  But  this  alleged  co-ordination  would  not 
justify  Jesus ;  for,  as  we  have  already  said,  the  position  of  a  man  cannot 
be  compared  to  that  of  God.  We  must  reach  the  point  of  dependence  in 
order  that  the  argument  may  avail.  And  this  relation  of  dependence  it 
is,  indeed,  which  appears  from  the  relation  between  the  two  propositions: 
"  Since  my  Father  works  until  this  moment,  I  also  work."  In  order  to 
grasp  the  meaning  of  this  word,  at  once  simple  and  profound,  it  is  suffi- 
cient to  imagine  Jesus  working  with  Joseph  in  the  carpenter's  shop  at 
Nazareth.  Can  we  not  readily  understand  the  reply  which  He  would 
have  addressed  to  the  one  who  wished  to  turn  Him  aside  from  the  work  : 
"  My  Father  works  until  now,  and  I  also  [consequently]  cannot  cease  to 
work."  Jesus  finds  Himself  now  with  His  Heavenly  Father  in  a  vaster 
workshop  ;  He  sees  God  at  work  in  the  theocracy  and  in  the  whole  world, 
occupied  with  working  for  the  salvation  of  mankind,  and  He  suits  His 
own  local  and  personal  working  to  this  immense  work.  This  is  what  He 
has  just  done  in  healing  the  impotent  man;  this  modest  healing  is  a  link 


chap.  v.  18.  463 

in  the  great  chain  suspended  from  His  Father's  hand,  a  real  factor  in  the 
work  which  God  is  accomplishing  here  on  earth.  The  development  of 
this  thought  will  follow  in  vv.  19,  20. 

The  meaning,  therefore,  is  not :  "  I,  as  truly  as  God,  have  the  right  to 
work  on  the  Sabbath;"  but:  "I  have  done  nothing  but  obey  the  signal 
which  God  gave  me  at  the  moment  ..."  Jesus  sets  forth,  not  the  con- 
tinuity of  His  working,  but  his  filial  and  devoted  adaptation  to  the  work 
of  the  Father.  And  if  objection  is  made  that  this  amounts  to  the  same 
thing,  since  God  might  direct  Him  to  work  even  on  the  Sabbath,  the  an- 
swer is  easy.  God  will  not  direct  him  to  do  anything  which  is  contrary  to 
the  position  of  Jew,  which  He  has  imposed  upon  Him  for  the  time  of  His 
earthly  life.  And  He  has  done  this  none  the  more  in  this  case,  since 
neither  the  way  in  which  Jesus  healed  the  impotent  man,  nor  the  return 
of  the  latter  to  His  dwelling,  carrying  his  bed,  really  fell  under  the  pro- 
hibition of  the  Mosaic  law,  as  rightly  understood.  Hilgenfeld  has  gone  even 
so  far  as  to  see  in  this  saying  of  the  Gospel  an  intentional  contradiction  of 
the  idea  of  the  rest  of  God  in  Genesis.  But  the  rest  in  Genesis  refers  to 
the  work  of  God  in  the  sphere  of  nature,  while  the  question  here  is  of 
the  divine  work  for  the  salvation  of  the  human  race.  Is  there  here,  as  is 
affirmed,  pretentious  metaphysics  ?  No.  It  is  the  deepest  foundation  of  the 
peculiar  filial  life  of  Jesus,  which  all  at  once  appears  in  this  marvelously 
concise  saying.  The  life  of  Socrates  presents  a  phenomenon  which  has 
some  analogy  to  that  of  which  we  have  just  had  a  glimpse.  His  genius 
arrested  him  when  he  was  on  the  point  of  acting  contrary  to  the  will  of 
the  gods.  But  what  a  distance  between  this  purely  negative  action  and 
the  positive  divine  impulse  to  which  Jesus  attaches  His  whole  work! 
And  what  an  appropriateness  in  this  saying,  what  an  imposing  apology  ! 
It  was  to  say  to  His  adversaries  :  In  accusing  me,  it  is  the  Father  whom 
you  accuse.  It  is  the  legislator  Himself  whom  you  reproach  with  the 
transgression  of  the  law ;  for  I  only  act  on  a  signal  received  from  Him. 
We  can  understand,  however,  how  this  saying,  instead  of  pacifying  the 
adversaries,  was  only  like  the  drop  of  oil  thrown  upon  the  fire,  and  caused 
their  rage  to  overflow. 

Ver.  18.  "For  this  reason1  the  Jews  sought  the  more  to  kill  him,  because  he 
not  only  broke  the  Sabbath,  but  called  God  his  own  Father,  making  himself 
equal  with  God."  The  6ia  tovto  (for  this  reason),  is  explained  by  the  on 
(because),  which  follows.  "We  have  seen,  that  according  to  the  genuine 
text  in  ver.  16,  the  intention  to  kill  Jesus  had  not  yet  been  ascribed  to  His 
enemies ;  it  was  only  implicitly  contained  in  the  word  ediwnov  (they  perse- 
cuted). This  suffices  to  explain  the  fiallov  (yet  more)  of  ver.  18.  Let  us 
notice  here  the  singular  exaggerations  of  Reuss :  "  Let  one  read,"  he  says, 
"  the  discourse,  ver.  18  ff.,  many  times  interrupted  by  the  phrase  :  They 
persecute  him,  they  seek  to  kill  him.  According  to  the  common  and  purely 
historical  exegesis,  we  reach  the  picture  of  the  Jews  running  after  Jesus 
in  the  streets  and  pursuing  Him  with  showers  of  stones  "(t.  ii.,  p.  416).    The 

i  X  D  It. :  iiarovro  ow  -,  the  rest  omitouv. 


464  SECOND   PART. 

fact  is,  that  the  simple  historical  exegesis,  which  does  not  of  set  purpose 
go  into  error,  does  not  find  in  these  expressions:  "  T  hey  persecuted  Him" 
(ver.  16),  "they  sought  to  kill  Him"  (ver.  18),  anything  else  than  the  indi- 
cation of  some  hostile  secret  meetings  in  which  the  rulers  asked  them- 
selves, even  then,  how  they  could  get  rid  of  so  dangerous  a  man.  The 
Synoptics  trace  back  also  to  this  epoch  the  murderous  projects  of  the 
adversaries  of  Jesus  (Luke  vi.  7,  11;  Mark  iii.  6;  Matt.  xii.  14).  The 
anxious  look  of  John  was  able  to  discern  the  fruit  in  the  germ. — "E/bf, 
not:  He  had  violated  (Ostervald)  ;  but  (imperfect):  He  broke,  strictly :  dis- 
solved. His  example  and  His  principles  seemed  to  annihilate  the  Sab- 
bath. Besides  this  first  complaint,  the  declaration  of  Jesus  in  ver.  17  had 
just  furnished  them  a  second — that  of  blaspheming.  It  was,  first  of  all, 
the  word  fiob  (my  Father),  which  shocked  them  because  of  the  special  and 
exclusive  sense  which  this  expression  assumed  in  the  mouth  of  Jesus.  If  He 
had  said  Our  Father,  the  Jews  would  have  accepted  the  saying  without 
displeasure  (viii.  41).  It  was,  in. addition,  the  practical  consequences  which 
he  seemed  to  draw  from  the  term,  making  the  working  of  God  the  stand- 
ard of  His  own,  and  thus  making  Himself  equal  with  God. 

The  17th  verse  contains  the  primal  idea  of  the  whole  following 
discourse :  the  relation  of  subordination  between  the  activity  of  the 
Father  and  that  of  the  Son.  Vv.  19,  20,  set  forth  this  idea  in  a  more 
detailed  way ;  in  ver.  19,  the  relation  of  the  Son's  action  to  that  of  the 
Father;  in  ver.  20,  the  relation  of  the  Father's  action  to  that  of  the  Son. 
We  might  say:  the. Son  who  puts  himself  with  fidelity  at  the  service  of 
the  Father  (ver.  19),  and  the  Father  who  condescends  to  direct  the  activity 
of  the  Son  (ver.  20). 

Ver.  19.  "  Jesus  therefore  ansivered  and  said  unto  them l :  Verily,  verily?  I  say 
unto  you :  the  Sou  can  do  nothing  of  himself,  but  what  he  seeth  the  Father 
doing.  For  the  things  which  he  doeth,  these  doeth  the  Son  also  in  like  manner." 
The  interpreters  who  find  a  speculative  idea  in  ver.  17,  such  as  that  of 
continuous  creation,  see  in  vv.  19,  20,  the  unfolding  of  the  metaphysical 
relation  between  the  Father  and  the  Logos.  But  if  one  gives  to  ver.  17, 
as  we  have  done,  a  sense  appropriate  to  the  context,  vv.  19,  20  do  not  have 
this  more  or  less  abstract  theological  character;  they,  as  well  as  ver.  17, 
have  a  practical  application  to  the  given  case.  Jesus  means  to  say,  not :  I  am 
this  or  that  for  my  Father ;  I  sustain  to  Him  such  or  such  a  relation ;  but : 
"  Whatever  work  you  see  me  do,  though  it  should  give  offence  to  you, 
like  that  for  which  I  am  now  accused,  be  well  assured  that,  as  a  submis- 
sive Son,  I  have  done  it  only  because  I  saw  my  Father  acting  in  this  way 
at  the  same  time."  There  is  no  theology  here ;  it  is  the  explanation  of 
His  work  which  had  been  charged  as  criminal  and  of  all  His  working  in 
general,  starting  from  the  deepest  law  of  His  moral  life,  from  His  filial 
dependence  with  relation  to  His  Father.  This  answer  resembles  the  "I 
cannot  do  otherwise  "  of  Luther,  at  Worms.    Jesus  puts  His  work  under 

>  X  hegins  the  verse  thus :  eAeyef  ovv  avroi?  *  X  alone  omits  one  of  the  two  a/n)v. 

O  Ir/crou;.     B  L :  cAcyev  instead  of  tintv. 


chap.  v.  19.  465 

the  guarantee  of  His  Father's,  as  the  impotent  man  had  just  put  his  own 
under  the  guarantee  of  the  work  of  Jesus  (vcr.  11). 

The  first  proposition  of  ver.  19  presents  this  defense  in  a  negative  form : 
Nothing  by  myself;  the  second,  in  an  affirmative  form:  Everything  under 
the  impulse  of  the  Father.  The  expression :  can  do  nothing,  does  not 
denote  a  metaphysical  impossibility  or  one  of  essence,  but  a  moral,  that 
is  absolutely  free,  powerlessness.  This  appears  from  ver.  20  and  from  the 
very  term  Son,  which  Jesus  intentionally  substitutes  for  the  pronoun  I  of 
ver.  17.  For  it  is  in  virtue  of  His  filial — that  is  to  say,  His  perfectly  sub- 
missive and  devoted — character,  that  Jesus  is  inwardly  prevented  from 
acting  of  Himself,  at  any  moment  whatever.  He  would  indeed  have  the 
power  of  acting  otherwise,  if  He  wished ;  and  here  is  the  idea  which  gives 
to  the  expression  a<p'  iavfov,  of  Himself  a  real  and  serious  meaning.  In 
all  the  phases  of  His  existence,  the  Son  has  a  treasure  of  force  belonging 
to  Himself  which  He  might  use  freely  and  independently  of  the  Father. 
According  to  ver.  26,  He  could,  as  Logos,  bring  forth  worlds  out  of  nothing 
and  make  Himself  their  God.  But  He  is  wholly  with  God,  here  on  earth 
as  in  heaven,  (John  i.  1) ;  and  rather  than  be  the  God  of  a  world  for  Him- 
self, He  prefers  to  remain  in  His  position  as  Son  and  not  to  use  His 
creative  power  except  in  communion  with  His  Father.  This  law  of  the 
Son  in  His  divine  life  is  also  His  law  in  His  human  existence.  He 
possesses  as  man  all  the  faculties  of  man,  and  besides,  after  the  baptism, 
all  the  Messianic  forces.  Therewith  He  could  create,  of  His  own  impulse, 
in  the  sense  in  which  every  man  of  talent  creates — create  by  and  for 
Himself,  and  could  found  here  below  a  kingdom  which  should  be  His  own, 
like  men  of  genius  and  conquerors.  Was  it  not  to  this  very  real  power 
that  the  various  suggestions  of  Satan  appealed  in  the  wilderness?  But 
He  voluntarily  refused  to  make  any  such  use  of  His  human  and  Messianic 
powers,  and,  invariably  connecting  His  work  Avith  that  of  His  Father,  He 
thus  freely  remains  faithful  to  Hi3  character  as  Son.  The  clause  iav  /jt; 
ti  .  .  .  unless  He  sees  .  .  .  doing  it,  or  rather:  if  He  does  not  see  the 
Father  doing  it,  does  not  restrict  the  idea  to:  do  of  Himself.  It  is  rather 
an  epexegetical  explanation  of  a<j>'  iavtov,  of  Himself :  "  Of  Himself,  that 
is  to  say,  if  He  does  not  see  ..."  The  present  participle  Trmovvm,  doing, 
answers  to  apn,  noiv,  of  ver.  17 :  The  Son  see,s  the  Father  acting,  and  asso- 
ciates Himself,  at  the  same  instant,  with  His  action.  The  figurative  term 
(Hetteiv,  see,  denotes  the  look  of  the  mind  constantly  fixed  upon  the 
Father  to  watch  for  His  will  and  to  discern  the  point  where  His  working 
actually  is,  in  order  to  adapt  His  own  to  it.  In  fact,  this  cannot,  of  which 
Jesus  has  just  spoken,  is  only  the  negative  side  of  His  filial  devotion.  But 
love,  while  preventing  His  acting  by  Himself,  causes  Him  to  co-operate 
actively  in  the  work  of  the  Father.  Contemplating  it  as  already  accom- 
plished in  the  thought  of  God,  He  immediately  executes  it  on  the  earth. 
He  can  only  act  on  this  condition. 

This  is  the  idea  contained  in  the  second  part  of  ver.  10.  It  is  united 
by  for  to  the  preceding.  In  fact,  if  every  work  of  His  own  is  impossible 
for  the  Son,  it  is  because  He  devotes  Himself  entirely  to  the  work  of  the 
30 


466  SECOND  PART. 

Father.  The  sum  of  His  activity  being  absorbed  in  this  voluntary  depend- 
ence, there  remains  for  Him  neither  time  nor  force  for  acting  by  Himself. 
"A  jap  av,  the  things,  ivhatever  they  may  be.  This  word  includes  eventuali- 
ties without  number,  and,  as  a  consequence,  many  other  infractions  of 
their  Pharisaic  statutes  besides  the  one  which  they  have  just  seen  and 
which  gives  them  so  much  offense.  But  He  has  no  change  to  make  for 
this  reason ;  for  every  work  of  the  Father,  whatever  it  may  be,  must 
reproduce  itself  in  His  work.  The  word  in  like  manner,  dficiug,  does  not 
denote  a  mere  imitation,  for  the  Father's  work  is  still  to  be  done,  since  the 
Son  sets  Himself  to  the  execution  of  it ;  it  is  rather,  as  Reuss  says,  "an 
application  of  the  Son's  work  to  the  Father's."  The  Father's  work 
becomes  that  of  the  Son,  in  so  far  as  the  latter  is  capable  of  containing  the 
former.  The  Son  connects  Himself  at  each  moment  with  the  work  of  the 
Father,  in  order  to  continue  it  in  the  measure  in  which  His  intelligence 
can  embrace  it  and  His  power  realize  it.  In  this  saying,  we  know  not 
which  is  the  more  astonishing,  the  simplicity  of  the  form  or  the  sublimity 
of  the  idea.  Jesus  speaks  of  this  intimate  relation  with  the  Being  of 
beings,  as  if  the  question  were  of  the  simplest  thing  in  the  world.  It  is 
the  saying  of  the  child  of  twelve  years  :  "Mast  I  not  be  in  that  which  belongs 
to  my  Father?  "  raised  to  its  highest  power.  But  this  perfect  subordination 
of  the  Son's  work  to  the  Father's  cannot  exist  except  on  one  condition : 
that  the  Father  consents  to  initiate  the  Son  incessantly  into  the  course  of 
His  working.     This  is  also  what  He  deigns  to  do. 

Ver.  20.  The  relation  of  the  Father  to  the  Son :  For  the  Father  loveth  the 
Son,  and  showeth  him  all  things  that  he  himself  doeth,  and  he  will  shoiv  him 
greater  works  than  these,  that  ye  may  marvel."  The  co-operation  of  the  Son 
in  the  divine.work  rests  (for)  upon  the  infinite  love  of  the  Father,  which 
conceals  nothing  from  the  Son.  The  term  <pilelv  expresses  tenderness  (to 
cherish),  and  suits  perfectly  the  intimacy  of  the  relation  here  described. 
It  was  otherwise  in  iii.  35,  where  the  word  ayanav,  which  indicates  the  love 
of  approbation  and,  in  some  sort,  of  admiration  (aya/iat),  was  found ;  be- 
cause the  question  there  was  of  the  communication  of  omnipotence.  The 
showing  of  the  Father  corresponds  to  the  seeing  of  the  Son  (ver.  19),  and 
is,  at  once,  its  condition  and  consequence ;  the  condition  :  for  the  Father 
unveils  His  work  to  the  Son,  to  the  end  that  He  may  be  able  to  know  it 
and  co-operate  in  it;  the  consequence:  for  it  is  this  constant  and  faithful 
co-operation  of  the  Son  which  causes  this  revelation  incessantly  to  renew 
itself. 

But  the  initiation  and  co-operation  of  the  Son  in  the  Father's  work  are 
subjected  to  a  law  of  progress,  as  is  suitable  to  the  truly  human  state  of 
this  latter.  This  is  what  the  end  of  the  verse  expresses :  And  he  will  show 
him  greater  works  than  these.  The  expression  :  whatsoever  things,  in  ver.  19, 
gave  a  hint  already  of  that  gradual  extension  of  the  domain  of  the  works 
which  the  Father  entrusts  to  the  Son.  Reuss  thinks  that  the  question  is 
of  two  different  kinds  of  works,  those  of  the  Father  appertaining  to  the  out- 
ward domain,  and  those  of  the  Son  to  the  spiritual  domain,  and  that  the 
term  greater  refers  to  the  superiority  of  the  second  to  the  first.    But  the 


chap.  v.  20.  4G7 

bodily  resurrection  is  also  the  work  of  the  Son  (vv.  28,  29),  and  Jesus 
could  not,  in  any  case,  say  that  the  Son's  works  are  greater  than  the 
Father's.  The  word  ofioiuc,  in  like  manner,  would  suffice  to  refute  this 
explanation.  Tobruv,  than  these,  evidently  refers  to  the  healing  of  the  im- 
potent man  and  to  the  miracles  of  the  same  sort  which  Jesus  had  per- 
formed and  of  which  the  Jews  were  then  witnesses.  This  is  only  the 
beginning.  In  proportion  as  the  work  of  Jesus  grows  in  extent  and  force, 
the  Father's  work  will  pass  more  completely  into  it ;  and  thus  will  the 
saying  of  Isaiah  be  realized  :  "  The  pleasure  of  the  Lord  shall  prosper  in  His 
hand."  The  word  will  show  declares  that  the  Father  will  give  Him  at 
once  the  signal  and  the  power  to  accomplish  these  greater  and  still  greater 
works.  Comp.  Apoc.  i.  1 :  "  the  revelation  which  the  Father  gave  to 
Him." 

The  words  which  close  the  verse :  to  the  end  that  ye  may  marvel,  are  care- 
fully weighed.  Jesus  refrains  from  saying :  to  the  end  that  ye  may  be- 
lieve. He  knows  too  well  to  whom  He  is  speaking  at  this  moment.  The 
question  here,  as  Weiss  says,  is  of  a  surprise  of  confusion.  We  mighfr  para- 
ph rase  thus  :  "  And  then  there  will  truly  be  something  at  which  you  may 
be  astonished."  The  Jews  opened  their  eyes  widely  as  they  saw  an  impo- 
tent man  healed :  How  will  it  be  when  they  shall  one  day,  at  the  word  of 
this  same  Jesus,  see  mankind  recovering  spiritual,  and  even  corporeal  life  ! 
One  cure  astonishes  them  :  What  will  they  say  of  a  Pentecost  and  a  resur- 
rection of  the  dead  !  This  somewhat  disdainful  manner  of  speaking  of 
miracles  would  be  strange  enough  on  the  part  of  an  evangelist  who  was 
in  the  whole  course  of  his  narrative  playing  the  part  of  an  inventor  of 
miracles. — "Iva,  in  order  that,  expresses  not  only  a  result  (were),  but  a  pur- 
pose. This  astonishment  is  willed  by  God ;  for  it  is  from  it  that  the  con- 
version of  Israel  will  issue  at  the  end  of  time.  In  view  of  the  wonders 
produced  hy  the  Gospel  among  mankind,  Israel  will  finally  render  to  the 
Son  that  homage,  equal  to  what  it  renders  to  the  Father,  of  which  ver.  23 
speaks. 

These  two  verses  are  one  of  the  most  remarkable  passnges  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment in  the  Christological  point  of  view.  De  Wette  finds  in  the  expression,  of 
Himself  (ver.  19),  an  exclusive  and  scarcely  clear  reference  to  the  human  side  of 
the  person  of  Jesus;  for,  after  all,  if  Jesus  is  the  Logos,  His  will  is  as  divine  as 
that  of  the  Father,  and  there  can  be  no  contrast  between  the  one  and  the  other, 
as  the  expression,  of  Himself  would  imply.  This  defect  in  logic  is  found,  accord- 
ing to  his  view,  again  in  the  words  of  xvi.  13,  where  this  same  expression,  of 
Himself  is  hypothetically  applied  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  According  to  Likke,  it  is 
only  a  popular  way  of  presenting  the  human  appearance  of  Jesus,  excludingthe  di- 
vine element.  Rems  (t.  II.,  pp.  438  ff.)  brings  out  in  this  passage  heresy  upon  heresy, 
if  the  Logos  theory,  as  it  has  been  presented  in  the  Prologue,  is  taken  as  the 
norm  of  the  Johannean  thought.  According  to  him,  indeed,  God  is  conceived,  in 
the  Prologue,  as  a  purely  abstract  being,  who  does  not  act  in  space  and  time  ex- 
cept through  the  intermediation  of  the  Logos,  who  is  perfectly  equal  to  the 
Father,  "the  essence  of  God  reproduced,  so  to  speak,  a  second  time  and  by  itself." 
According  to  our  passage,  on  the  contrary,  the  Father  does  a  work  for  Himself 


468  SECOND  PART. 

(o  avToq  7toict))  which  He  reveals  to  the  Son,  and  in  which  He  gives  Him  a  share, 
which  is  entirely  contradictory.  According  to  this  latter  view  indeed,  the  Father 
acts  directly  in  the  world  without  making  use  of  the  Logos,  and  the  Son  is  rela- 
tively to  the  Father  in  a  condition  of  subordination,  which  is  incompatible  with 
"the  equality  of  the  two  divine  persons  "  taught  in  the  Prologue. 

The  judgment  of  Liicke  and  de  Wette  undoubtedly  strikes  against  the  con- 
ception of  the  person  of  Jesus  which  is  called  orthodox,  but  not  that  of  tlu  New 
Testament  and  of  John  in  particular.  John  does  not  know  this  Jesus,  now  divine, 
now  human,  to  which  the  traditional  exegesis  has  recourse.  He  knows  a  Logos 
who,  once  deprived  of  the  divine  state,  entered  fully  into  the  human  state,  and, 
after  having  been  revealed  to  Himself  at  the  baptism  as  a  divine  subject,  con- 
tinued His  human  development,  and  only  through  the  ascension  recovered  the 
divine  state.  By  His  human  existence  and  His  earthly  activity,  He  realized  in 
the  form  of  becoming,  the  same  filial  relation  which  He  realized  in  His  divine  ex- 
istence in  the  form  of  being.  This  is  the  reason  why  all  the  terms  employed  by 
Jesus — the  showing  of  the  Father,  the  seeing  of  the  Son,  the  expressions  "  cannot " 
and  "of  Himself" — apply  to  the  different  phases  of  His  divine  and  human  exist- 
ence, to  each  one  according  to  its  nature  and  its  measure.  To  understand  the 
"  of  Himself"  in  our  passage  and  xvi.  13,  it  is  only  necessary  to  take  in  earnest,  as 
the  Scripture  does,  the  distinction  of  persons  in  the  divine  being :  if  each  one  of 
them  has  His  own  life,  from  which  He  may  draw  at  will,  there  is  no  inconse- 
quence between  the  passages  cited. 

As  to  the  judgment  of  Kcuss,  the  idea,  which  he  finds  in  the  Prologue,  of  an 
abstract  divinity,  purely  transcendental  and  without  any  possible  relation  to  the 
world,  is  not  that  of  John  ;  it  is  only  that  of  Philo.  On  the  contrary,  God  is,  in 
tlie  Prologue,  a  Father  full  of  love  both  for  His  Son  (ver.  18)  and  for  the  children 
whom  He  Himself  begets  by  communicating  to  them  His  own  life  (e«  deov  kyev- 
vr/dr/cav,  xoere  begotten  of  God,  ver.  13).  He  can  thus  act  directly  in  the  world  and, 
consequently,  associate  His  Son,  made  man,  in  His  work  on  the  earth.  Vv.  19, 
20  are  in  contradiction  to  the  theory  of  Philo,  but  not  to  the  conception  of  the 
evangelist.  It  is  exactly  the  same  with  regard  to  the  subordination  of  the  Son. 
The  true  thought  of  the  Prologue  is  exactly  that  of  our  two  verses,  19,  20 ;  the 
dependence,  and  free  dependence,  of  the  Son  (yv  irpbc  tov  tfeov,  ver.  1).  This 
conception  of  the  Logos  undoubtedly,  also,  contradicts  that  of  Philo,  a  fact  which 
only  proves  one  thing  :  that  it  is  an  error  to  make  the  evangelist  the  disciple  of 
that  strange  philosopher,  while  he  is  simply  the  disciple  of  Jesus  Christ.  (In- 
trod  ,  pp.  127  ff.) 

Jf  we  wish  to  form  a  lively  idea  of  the  relation  of  the  work  of  Jesus  to  that 
of  the  Father,  as  it  is  presented  here,  the  hest  way  is  to  enter  ourselves  into  a 
similar  relation  to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  We  shall  then  have  this  experience  : 
that  the  more  the  faithful  servant  heartily  participates  in  the  work  of  his  Master, 
the  more  also  does  the  latter  give  him  understanding  in  respect  to  the  totality 
and  the  details,  and  the  more  does  He  make  him  capable  of  realizing  it.  The 
agent  grows  with  the  work,  as  the  work  grows  with  the  agent.  The  following  are 
well-known  examples  of  each  of  the  two  things:  Oberlin,  his  eyes  fixed  upon 
Christ  as  Christ  had  His  eyes  fixed  upon  the  Father,  discerning  the  point  which 
the  divine  work  has  reached  among  the  inhabitants  of  Ban-de-la-Roche  and  what 
the  continuation  of  this  work  demands;  John  Bost,  contemplating  so  many  suf- 
ferings unrelieved  on  the  soil  of  France ;  Felix  Neff,  shocked  at  the  sight  of  the 


chap.  v.  21.  469 

deserted  Churches  of  the  High  Alps ;  Wilberforce,  feeling  the  chains  of  his  en- 
slaved brethren  weigh  upon  his  heart ;  Antoine  Court,  weeping  over  the  ruins  of 
the  Reformed  Church  of  France;  Zinzendorf,  finding  himself  suddenly  in  the 
presence  of  the  persecuted  Moravian  emigrants  who  arrive  in  troops  in  his  own 
lands  .  .  .  ;  in  all  these  cases,  the  faithful  workman  applies  his  ear  to  the  heart 
of  his  Master,  discerns  its  beating,  and  then,  rising  up,  acts.  Christ's  work,  that 
work  which  He  wishes  to  do,  passes  then,  in  a  certain  portion  of  it,  into  the 
hands  of  His  servant.  Thus  it  is,  no  doubt,  that  Christ  gradually  entered  into 
possession  of  the  divine  work,  even  till  it  became  His  own  in  its  totality  (John 
iii.  35).  And  having  come  to  this  point  He  gradually  gives  His  own  a  part  in  it, 
who  become  the  free  sharers  in  His  working,  and  He  makes  real  to  them  that 
promise  which  is  not  without  analogy  to  the  saying  which  we  are  explaining : 
"Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  that  he  who  believeth  in  me,  he  also  shall  do  the 
works  which  I  do ;  he  shall  do  even  greater  works  than  these  (fj.ei$ova  tovtuv),  be- 
cause I  go  to  my  Father  "  (xiv.  12). 

Jesus  has  just  spoken  of  works,  greater  than  His  present  miracles,  which 
He  will  one  day  accomplish  at  the  signal  of  His  Father.  He  now  ex- 
plains what  these  works  are;  they  are  the  resurrection  and  the  jxidgment  of 
mankind,  vv.  21-29.  This  difficult  passage  has  been  very  differently  un- 
derstood. I.  Several  Fathers,  TertuUian,  Chrysostom,  later  Erasmus,  Grotius, 
Bengel,  finally  in  recent  times  Schott,  Kuinoel,  Hengstenberg,  etc.,  have  ap- 
plied the  whole  of  the  passage  (except  ver.  24)  to  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead,  in  the  strict  sense,  and  to  the  last  judgment.  II.  A  diametrically  op- 
posite interpretation  was  held  already  by  the  Gnostics,  then,  among  the 
moderns,  by  Amnion,  Schweizer,  B.  Crusius, — it  is  that  which  refers  the 
whole  passage,  even  vv.  2S,  29,  to  the  spiritual  resurrection  and  the  moral 
judgment  which  the  Gospel  effects ;  (see  also  Reuss,  in  some  sort).  III. 
Finally,  a  third  group  of  interpreters  unite  these  two  views  in  this  sense, 
that  they  refer  vv.  21-27  to  the  moral  action  of  the  Gospel,  and  vv.  2S,  29 
to  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  in  the  proper  sense.  These  are,  Calvin, 
Lamjie,  and  most  of  the  moderns,  Liicke,  Tholuek,  Meyer,  de  Wette,  etc.  IV. 
By  taking  account,  with  greatest  care,  of  the  shades  of  expression,  wo 
arrive  at  the  opinion  that  the  true  progress  of  ideas  is  the  following  :  In 
a  first  cycle,  the  thought  of  ver.  17  has  been  quite  summarily  developed 
(vv.  19,  20).  Then,  the  works  of  the  Father  which  the  Son  is  to  accom- 
plish are  precisely  stated  in  a  second  cycle  (vv.  21-23)  ;  those  of  making 
alive  and  judging.  Finally,  in  a  third  cycle  (vv.  24-29)  the  thought 
makes  a  final  advance,  which  brings  it  to  its  end,  in  the  sense  that  vv. 
24-27  apply  to  the  resurrection  and  the  spiritual  judgment,  and  vv.  27-29 
to  the  final  judgment  and  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  This  last  view 
is,  as  it  seems  to  me,  nenrly  that  of  several  modern  commentators,  such 
as  Luthardt,  Weiss  and  Kril. 

Ver.  21.  "  For,  as  the  Father  raiseth  the  dead  and  giveth  them  life,  so  doth 
the  Son  also  make  alive  whom  He  will."  To  raise  the  dead  is  a  greater  work 
than  to  heal  an  impotent  man  ;  hence  the  for.  This  work,  as  well  as  the 
particular  miracles,  is  the  reproduction  of  the  Father's  work.    The  great 


470  SECOND   PAKT. 

difficulty  here  is  to  determine  whether,  as  the  greater  part  of  the  interpre- 
ters seem  to  think  (for  many  do  not  explain  themselves  sufficiently  on 
this  point),  the  work  of  resurrection  ascribed  to  the  Father  is  to  be  identi- 
fied with  that  which  the  Son  accomplishes,  or  whether  it  is  specifically 
different  or,  finally,  whether  they  combine  with  one  another  by  a  process, 
the  formula  of  which  must  be  sought  after.1    According  'o  the  first  ex- 
planation, the  ^uottole'lv,  give  life,  ascribed  to  the  Father,  would  remain  in  a 
purely  ideal  state  until  the  Son,  yielding  to  the  divine  initiative,  caused 
the  design  of  the  Father  to  pass  into  the  earthly  reality.    Thus  Lulhardt 
says:  "  The  work  belongs  to  God,  in  so  far  as  it  proceeds  from  Him  ;  to 
the  Son,  in  so  far  as  it  is  accomplished  by  Him  in  the  world  "  (p.  444). 
Gcss:  "  It  is  not  that  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  was  until  now  the  work 
of  the  Father,  to  become  now  the  work  of  the  Son ;  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead  is  not  yet  an  accomplished  fact.     No  more  is  it  that  one  part  of 
the  dead  are  raised  by  the  Father,  another  by  the  Son.  .  .  .  But  the  Son 
is  regarded  as  the  organ  by  which  the  Father  raises  from  the  dead."  Biium- 
leiri:  "The  Son  is  the  bearer  and  mediator  of  the  Father's  activity." 
This  sense  is  very  good  in  itself ;  but  does  it  really  suit  the  expression: 
like  as  f    Was  this  indeed  the  proper  term  to  designate  a  single  divine  im- 
pulse, an  initiative  of  a  purely  moral  nature?    Jesus,  in  expressing  Him- 
self thus,  seems  to  be  thinking,  rather,  of  a  real  work  which  the  Father 
accomplishes  and  to  which  His  own  corresponds.      According  to  the 
second    sense,  adopted   by    Reuss,    we    must    ascribe    the    bodily  resur- 
rection to  the  Father  and  the  resurrection  in  the  spiritual  sense,  sal- 
vation, to   the  Son.      Reuss  finds  the  proof   of   this  distinction   in  the 
o&f  ■dklsi,  whom  he  wills,  which  indicates  a  selection  and  refers   conse- 
quently to  the  moral  domain  only.    This  solution  is  untenable.     How 
could  vv.  28,  29,  which  describe  the  consummation  of  the  Son's  work,  be 
applied  to  the  spiritual  resurrection  ?    Comp.  likewise  vi.  40,  44,  etc.,  where 
Jesus  expressly  ascribes  to  Himself,  by  an  ey<5,  I,  several  times  repeated, 
the  resurrection  of  the  body— a  fact  which  entirely  destroys  the  line  of 
demarcation  proposed  by  Reuss.     Jesus  seems  to  me  rather  to  speak  here 
of  the  divine  action,  at  once  creative,  preservative  and  restorative,  which 
is  exercised  from  the  beginning  of  things  in  the  sphere  of  nature,  and 
which  has  broken  forth  with  a  new  power  in  the  theocratic  domain. 
Comp.  Deut.  xxxii.  39 :  "I  kill  and  make  alive,  I  wound  and  heal."  1  Sam. 
ii.  6 :  "  It  is  the  Lord  who  killeth  and  ma.krth  alive,  who  bringeth  down  to 
the  grave  and  bringeth  up  from  it."     To  this  work  of  moral  and  physical 
restoration,  till  now  accomplished  by  God,  Jesus  now  unites  His  own;  He 
becomes  the  agent  of  it  in  the  particular  sphere  in  which  He  finds  Him- 
self at  each  moment ;  this  sphere  will  extend  itself  ever  more  widely ;  His 
capacity,  in  Himself,  for  performing  it  will  increase  in  the  same  measure, 

J  As  if  (to  take  up  anew  the  comparison  of  tinct  part  in  the  work ;  or,  finally,  Jesus  see- 
the common  work  of  Jesus  and  Joseph)  we  onding  Joseph  more  and  more,  in  proportion 
had  to  decide  lor  one  of  these  three  forms:  as  He  grows,  and  ending  by  charging  Hinft- 
Either  Jesus  executing  the  plans  traced  out  self  with  the  whole  of  the  work, 
by  Joseph  ;  or  each  of  the  two  having  a  dis- 


chap.  v.  21.  471 

until  this  domain  is  the  universe  and  the  power'of  the  Son  is  omnipotence 
(cump.  Matt,  xxviii.  18).  The  steps  of  this  growth  are  the  following :  He 
begins  to  perform  isolated  miracles  of  corporeal  and  spiritual  resurrection, 
samples  of  His  great  future  work.  From  the  time  of  His  elevation  to 
glory,  He  realizes,  through  the  communication  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the 
moral  resurrection  of  mankind.  Finally,  on  His  return,  by  the  victory 
which  He  gains  over  the  last  enemy,  death  (1  Cor.  xv.  2G),  He  effects,  in 
the  physical  domain,  the  resurrection  of  believers,  and  afterwards  also  the 
universal  resurrection.  At  that  moment  only  will  the  work  of  the  Father 
have  passed  entirely  into  His  hands.  The  work  of  the  Son  is  not,  there- 
fore, different  from  that  which  the  Father  accomplishes.  Only  the  Son, 
made  man,  becomes  the  agent  of  it  only  by  degrees.  The  present,  makes 
alive,  in  the  second  member,  is  a  present  of  competency.  Comp.  indeed 
vv.  25  and  28  ("  the  hour  comelh  that  .  .  .  "),  which  show  that  the  reality 
is  yet  to  come.  Nevertheless,  even  now,  the  word  of  Christ  possesses  a 
life-giving  force  (the  hour  even  now  is,  ver.  25).  We  may  connect  the  object 
the  dead  with  the  first  verb  only  (raiseth),  and  give  to  the  second  verb  (^o- 
noiei,  gives  life),  an  absolute  sense.  But  perhaps  it  is  more  natural  to  make 
the  words,  the  dead,  the  object  of  both  of  the  verbs  (see  Weiss).  'Eyeipeiv, 
strictly  to  awake,  refers  to  the  passage  from  death  to  life ;  t^uonoielv,  to  give 
life,  to  the  full  restoration  of  life,  whether  spiritual  or  bodily.  Nothing 
forces  us,  with  Reuss,  to  restrict  the  application  of  the  word  make  alive, 
in  the  second  member,  to  spiritual  life  The  restriction  :  to  whom  he  ivills, 
undoubtedly  indicates  a  selection.  But  will  there  not  be  a  selection, also, 
in  the  bodily  resurrection  ?  In  ver.  29,  Jesus  distinguishes,  in  fact,  two 
bodily  resurrections,  one  of  life,  the  other  of  judgment.  The  first  alone 
truly  merits  the  name  of  making  alive. 

By  saying  :  those  whom  he  tvills,  Jesus  does  not  contrast  His  will  as  Son 
with  that  of  the  Father.  TJiis  meaning  would  require  oDf  avrog  ditei.  He 
contrasts  those  whom  He  feels  Himself  constrained  to  make  alive  (be- 
lievers) with  those  on  behalf  of  whom  it  is  morally  impossible  for  Him  to 
accomplish  this  miracle.  These  words,  therefore,  are  the  transition  to 
ver.  22,  where  it  is  said  that  tlie  judgment,  that  is  to  say,  the  selection,  is 
committed  to  Him.  In  effecting  the  selection  which  decides  the  eternal 
death  and  life  of  individuals,  Jesus  does  not  cease  for  an  instant  to  have 
His  eyes  fixed  upon  the  Father,  and  to  conform  Himself  to  His  purpose. 
According  to  vi.  3S,  40,  He  discerns  those  who  fulfill  the  divinely  appointed 
condition  :  he  that  believeth  ;  and  immediately  He  applies  to  them  the  life- 
giving  power  which  the  Father  has  given  to  Him,  and  which  has  now  be- 
come His  own.  Might  there  not  be  in  this  o£>f  Oitei,  those  whom  lie  wills,  an 
allusion  to  the  spontaneity  with  which  Jesus  had  offered  healing  to  the  im- 
potent man,  without  being  in  any  way  solicited  by  him,  choosing  him 
freely  among  all  the  sick  persons  who  surrounded  the  pool  ?  Reuss  finds,  in 
these  words :  those  ivhom  lie  wills,  a  contradiction  to  the  idea  of  the  depend- 
ence of  the  Son's  work  as  related  to  that  of  the  Father.  But  the  inward 
feeling  which  makes  Jesus  will  in  such  or  such  a  way,  while  forming  itself 
in  Him  spontaneously,  is  none  the  less  in  accord  with  that  of  God.    Jesua 


472  SECOND   PART. 

wills  of  His  own  will,  as  He  loves  of  His  oxvn  love.  But  this  love  and  this 
will  have  the  same  objects  and  the  same  end  as  the  love  and  will  of  the 
Father.  Comp.  the  formula,  in  the  Apostolic  Epistles  :  "  Grace  and  peace 
from  God,  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  Liberty  is  no  more  arbitrariness 
in  Jesus,  than  in  God.  In  the  same  sense  it  is  ascribed  to  the  Spirit  (iii.  8 
and  1  Cor.  xii.  11),  and  to  the  God  of  nature  (1  Cor.  xv.  88).  What  Jesus 
meant  to  express  here  is  not,  therefore,  as  Calvin  and  formerly  Reuss  have 
supposed,  the  idea  of  predestination,  it  is  the  glorious  competency  which 
it  pleases  God  to  bestow  upon  Jesus  for  the  accomplishment  of  the  com- 
mon work.  He  is  a  source  of  life  like  the  Father,  morally  at  first,  and 
then,  one  day,  corporeally.  While  affirming  His  voluntary  dependence, 
Jesus  allows  a  glimpse  to  be  gained  of  the  magnificence  of  His  filial  pre- 
rogative. 

Vv.  22,  23.  "  For  also  the  Father  judgeth  no  man ;  but  he  hath  committed 
all  power  of  judging  unto  the  Son,  23,  to  the  end  that  all  may  honor  the  Son  as 
they  honor  the  Father.  He  that  honoreth  not  the  Son  honoreth  not  the  Father 
who  sent  him."  Two  particles  connect  ver.  22  with  the  preceding:  yap,  for, 
and  ovdi  (translated  by  also),  which  literally  signifies  :  and  no  more.  The 
meaning  is,  therefore  :  "  For  the  Father  no  more  judges  any  one  (no  more 
than  He  raises  from  the  dead,  when  once  He  has  committed  to  the  Son 
the  charge  and  power  of  raising  from  the  dead,"  ver.  21).  The  for  pre- 
sents the  second  fact  (the  passing  over  of  judgment  to  the  Son)  as  the 
explanation  of  the .  first  (the  passing  over  of  the  power  to  raise 
from  the  dead).  Indeed,  to  make  alive  is  to  absolve ;  to  refuse  to  make 
alive  is  to  condemn.  The  power  of  making  alive  those  whom  one  wills 
implies,  therefore,  the  dignity  of  a  judge.  Meyer  understands  judge  here, 
as  in  chap,  iii.,  in  the  sense  of  condemn.  But  in  ver.  21,  the  question  is 
expressly  of  making  alive,  saving,  and  not  of  the  opposite ;  and  the  ex- 
pression tt/v  npioiv  iraoav,  judgment  in  all  its  forms  (ver.  22),  shows  that  the 
term  judge  should  be  taken  in  the  most  general  sense.  H.  Meyer  (Dis- 
courses of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  p.  3G)  is  shocked  because  this  term  is  taken  in 
ver.  22  in  the  spiritual  sense  (present  moral  judgment),  in  ver.  29  in  the 
external  sense  (the  final  judgment),  and  finally  in  ver.  30  in  a  sense  purely 
subjective  (the  individual  judgment  of  Jesus),  and  hence  he  concludes 
that  the  tenor  of  the  discourse  has  not  been,  in  this  case,  exactly  repro- 
duced. But  in  ver.  22  the  question  is  of  judgment  in  the  most  general 
sense,  without  definite  application  (all  judgment).  It  is  only  in  the  follow- 
ing cycle,  vv.  24-29,  that  the  meaning  of  this  term  is  precisely  stated,  and 
that  it  is  taken,  first,  in  'the  spiritual  sense,  then,  in  the  external  sense. 
Everything  is,  therefore,  correct  in  the  progress  of  the  thought. 

Ver.  23.  And  what  is  the  Father's  will  in  transferring  to  Jesus  the  two 
highest  attributes  of  divinity,  making  alive,  judging?  He  wills  that  the 
homage  of  adoration  which  humanity  renders  to  Him  should  be  extended 
to  the  Son  Himself.  "  The  Father  loveth  the  Son  "  (iii.  35) ;  this  is  the 
reason  why  He  wishes  to  see  the  world  at  the  feet  of  the  Son,  even  as  at 
His  own.  "  The  equality  of  honor,"  says  Weiss,  "  must  correspond  with 
the  equality  of  action."    The  word  n/iav,  to  honor,  does  not  directly  ex- 


chap.  v.  22-24.  473 

press  the  act  of  adoration,  as  Rcuss  remarks.  But  in  the  context  (*aftjf 
as),  it  certainly  denotes  the  religious  respect  of  which  the  act  of  adoration 
is  the  expression.  And  in  claiming  for  His  person  this  sentiment,  in  the 
same  sense  in  which  it  is  due  to  the  Father,  Jesus  authorizes,  as  related 
to  Himself,  worship  properly  so  called,  comp.  xx.  28;  Phil.  ii.  10  "that 
every  knee  should  boiv  at  the  name  of  Jesus;"  and  the  Apocalypse 
throughout.  The  Father  is  not  jealous  of  such  homage.  For  it  is  He 
whom  the  creature  honors  in  honoring  the  Son  because  of  His  divine 
character ;  as  also  it  is  to  God  that  honor  is  refused,  when  it  is  refused  to 
the  Son.  There  is  a  terrible  warning  for  the  accusers  of  Jesus  in  these 
last  words  of  the  verse.  Jesus  throws  back  upon  them  the  charge  of 
blasphemy ;  they  must  learn — these  zealous  defenders  of  the  glory  of 
God — that  when  they  accuse  Him,  Jesus,  as  they  are  doing,  because  of  the 
miracle  which  He  has  performed  in  the  midst  of  them,  it  is  God  to  whom 
the  outrage  which  they  inflict  upon  Him  is  addressed,  and  that  the  treat- 
ment to  which  they  subject  this  weak  and  poor  man  touches  the  Father 
Himself,  who  places  Himself  in  closest  union  with  Him.  This  menacing 
close  of  ver.  23  is  an  anticipation  of  the  severe  application  which  is  to 
terminate  the  discourse  (vv.  41-47). 

The  second  cycle  vv.  21-23  was  a  still  very  general  development  of  the 
abridged  cycle  vv.  19,  20.  In  the  third  cycle,  vv.  24-29,  Jesus  now  shows 
the  progressive  historical  realization  of  these  two  works  of  making  alive  and 
judging,  which  the  Father  has  conferred  upon  Him.  Until  this  point  (vv. 
21-23)  He  has  attributed  them  to  Himself  only  under  the  abstract  form  of 
mere  competency.  Now  we  behold  this  twofold  power  of  saving  and 
judging  really  in  exercise,  first  in  the  spiritual  sphere,  vv.  24-27 ;  then,  in 
the  outward  domain,  vv.  28,  29. 

Vv.  24-27.  First  phase:  the  spiritual  resurrection  and  moral  judgment 
of  humanity  by  the  Son. 

Ver.  24.  "  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  He  that  heareth  my  word,  and  be- 
lievrth  him  that  sent  mr,  hath  eternal  life ;  and  he  cometh  not  into  judgment, 
but  is  passed  from  death  into  life."  Divine  things  are  present  to  the  mind 
of  Jesus;  He  speaks  that  which  He  sees  (iii.  11);  hence  this  energetic 
affirmation  :  "  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  yon  "  (vv.  24,  25).  These  words  set 
forth,  at  the  same  time,  the  greatness  of  the  fact  announced.  It  is  really 
unheard  of:  For  him  who  receives  with  confidence  His  word,  the  two 
decisive  acts  of  the  eschatological  drama,  the  resurrection  and  the  judg- 
ment, arc  completed  things.  The  simple  word  of  Jesus  received  with 
faith  has  accomplished  everything.  This  fact  is  indeed  the  proof  of  the 
qualities  of  life-giver  and  judge  which  Jesus  ascribed  to  Himself  (vv.  21, 
22).  'Akoveiv,  to  hear,  denotes  not,  as  Weiss  thinks,  the  outward  hearing 
only,  in  contrast  to  the  inward  reception,  which  would,  come  afterwards 
(and  belie  vet  h  .  .  .  );  it  is  the  spiritual  hearing,  at  the  same  time  with  the 
physical,  in  the  sense  of  Matt.  xiii.  43.  For  the  verb  believe  has  a  new 
object  (Keil);  it  is  the  Father  as  the  one  who  has  sent  the  Son.  To  sur- 
render oneself  to  the  word  of  Jesus  in  faith  in  the  divine  character  of  His 
being  and  word,  is  to  render  homage  not  only  to  the  Son.  but  also  to  the 


474  SECOND   PART. 

Father.  The  meaning  of  ix^  C^e,  has  life,  can  be  fully  rendered  here 
only  by  saying  "  has  life  already.'"  It  is  the  proof  of  ver.  21 :  "  The  Son 
makes  alive."  Is  it  not,  indeed,  His  word  which  works  this  miracle? 
Kai,  and,  signifies :  and  -in  -consequence.  The  exemption  from  judgment 
follows  naturally  from  the  entrance  into  life.  The  place  of  judgment  is 
at  the  threshold  of  life  and  death.  'Epxerai,  comes,  is  the  present  of  idea. 
The  word  judgment  is  by  no  means  equivalent  to  condemnation,  KaraKptag, 
as  Meyer  will  have  it  and  as  Ostermld  translates.  A  judgment  deciding  on 
eternal  destiny,  says  Weiss,  is  no  longer  possible  with  regard  to  the  man 
who  has  in  fact  already  obtained  salvation.  By  the  word  of  Jesus,  re- 
ceived into  the  inner  man,  the  believer  undergoes  this  moral  judgment 
here  on  earth  to  which  unbelievers  will  be  subjected  at  the  last  day.  The 
revelation  of  the  hidden  things  (1  Cor.  iv.  5)  is  made  in  the  inner  forum 
of  his  conscience,  where  everything  is  condemned  in  succession  which 
will  be  condemned  for  the  rest  before  the  tribunal  at  the  last  judgment. 
The  judgment,  is  thus  for  him,  an  accomplished  thing.  If  therefore  the 
word  received  with  faith  frees  the  believer  from  the  judgment,  it  is  because 
it  anticipates  it;  comp.  xii.  48,  where  it  is  said  that  the  judge,  at  the  last 
day,  will  be  no  other  than  this  same  word.  What  a  feeling  of  the  abso- 
lute holiness  and  of  the  perfection  of  His  word  do  not  such  expressions 
imply  in  the  consciousness  of  Jesus !  The  reconciliation  of  this  passage 
with  Rom.  xiv.  10  and  2  Cor.  v.  10  has  been  given  at  iii.  18.  The  last 
words :  But  he  hath  passed  from  death  unto  life,  contrast  (bid)  the  condition 
of  him  who  has  entered  into  life  with  the  fate  of  the  one  who  will  have 
to  pass  through  the  judgment.  The  terms  death  and  life  are  taken  in 
the  spiritual  sense.  Westcott  thinks  that,  in  this  verse,  the  idea  of  the 
physical  resurrection  is  still  united  with  that  of  the  spiritual  resurrec- 
tion. The  combination  of  these  two  ideas  seems  to  me  impossible.  The 
question  is  of  the  effects  of  the  word  of  Jesus  in  the  sense  of  His  word 
of  teaching.  It  is  altogether  arbitrary  to  explain  the  /i£Ta[le[3r/K.£v,  with 
Baumlein,  in  the  sense  of  "  has  the  pledge  of  being  able  to  pass  from  death 
to  life." 

Ver.  25.  "  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  The  hour  is  coming,  and  now  is,1 
when  the  dead  shall  hear 2  the  voice  of  the  Son  of  God,3  and  they  tliat  *  hear 
shall  live.1' 5  A  new  affirmation,  which  Christ  draws  from  the  depths  of 
His  consciousness.  An  immense  perspective  opens  before  Him.  The 
great  act  of  the  spiritual  resurrection  of  humanity  dead  in  its  sins,  dead 
to  God,  is  to  begin  at  this  hour,  and  it  is  through  Him  that  it  will  be 
wholly  accomplished !  The  identity  of  the  formula  which  begins  these 
two  verses,  24  and  25,  "verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you"  as  well  as  the  asyn- 
deton, which  makes  the  second  the  energetic  reaffirmation  of  the  first, 
would  suffice  to  prove  that  ver.  25  cannot  refer  to  a  fact  essentially  differ- 


l^ab  omit  the  words  xai  vvv  ecrnc.  thorities  read  a.vdptoirov  (of  man). 

s  Instead  of  aKovoovrai,  K  L  some  Mnn.  *R  rejects  oi  (and  having  heard,  they  ..  .\ 

read  aKovown'.and  B  some  Mnn.  aKowowiv.  6T.  R.  with  11  Mjj.  and  nearly  all  the  Mnm. 

•Instead  of  #eov,  K  S  and  some  other  au-  {jjaovTat. ;  «BDL:  irjaovcnv. 


chap.  v.  25.  475 

ent  from  the  preceding,  and  how  wrong  it  is  for  Kcil  to  find  included  here 
at  once  the  physical  and  the  spiritual  resurrection.  Jesus  has  passed,  at 
ver.  24,  from  the  general  idea  of  resurrection  to  that  of  the  spiritual  res- 
urrection in  particular;  He  does  not  return  backward.  Only  in  order  to 
make  a  picture,  He  borrows  from  the  physical  resurrection  the  images  by 
which  He  wished  to  depict  the  spiritual  work  which  is  to  prepare  the  way 
for  it.  He  seems  to  allude  to  the  magnificent  vision  of  Ezekiel,  in  which 
the  prophet,  standing  in  the  midst  of  a  plain  covered  with  dry  bones,  calls 
them  to  life,  first,  by  his  word,  and  then,  by  the  breath  of  Jehovah.  Thus 
Jesus  abides  here  below  the  only  living  one  in  the  midst  of  humanity 
plunged  in  the  death  of  sin,  and  the  hour  is  approaching  in  which  He  is 
going  to  accomplish  with  reference  to  it  a  work  like  that  which  God  en- 
trusted to  the  prophet  with  regard  to  Israel  in  captivity.  There  is  here  a 
feeling  analogous  to  that  which  leads  Him  to  say  in  the  Synoptics  :  "  Let 
the  dead  bury  their  dead."  The  expression:  The  hour  cometh,  and  is  now 
come,  is  intended  (conip.  iv.  23)  to  open  the  eyes  of  all  to  the  grandeur  of 
this  epoch  which  is  passing  and  of  that  which  is  in  preparation.  Jesus 
says:  the  hour  cometh ;  what  He  means  is  the  sending  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
(vii.  37-39).  But  he  adds:  and  is  now  come ;  for  His  word,  which  is  spirit 
and  life  (vi.  63),  is  already  preparing  the  hearts  to  receive  the  Spirit. 
Comp.  xiv.  17.  For  the  expression  :  my  word,  Jesus  substitutes  :  the  voice 
of  the  Son  of  God.  The  teaching  of  Christ  is  thus  presented  as  the  per- 
sonal voice  of  Him  who  calls  sinners  to  life.  The  article  ol  before  agomavrec 
(those  ivho  have  heard),  distinctly  separates  the  spiritually  dead  into  two 
classes:  those  who  hear  the  voice  without  understanding  it  (comp.  xii.  40), 
and  those  who,  when  hearing  it,  have  ears  to  hear,  hear  it  inwardly.  Only 
these  last  are  made  alive  by  it.  It  is  the  function  of  judging  which  is 
accomplished  under  this  form. 

Those  who  apply  this  verse  to  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  in  the  strict 
sense,  are  obliged  to  refer  the  words  :  and  now  is,  to  a  few  miraculous 
resurrections  wrought  by  Jesus  in  the  course  6f  His  ministry,  and  to  ex- 
plain the  words  ol  aKovaavTsc  in  this  sense  :  and  after  having  heard  .  .  .  But 
all  Hengstenbcrg's  efforts  have  not  succeeded  in  justifying  this  grammati- 
cally impossible  interpretation  of  ol  anobaavrei^.  According  to  Olshausen, 
ver.  24  refers  to  the  spiritual  resurrection,  and  ver.  25  to  the  first  bodily 
resurrection — that  of  believers  at  the  Parousia  (1  Cor.  xv.  23).  Vv.  28, 
29,  finally,  designate  the  final,  universal  resurrection.  The  words :  and 
now  is,  must,  in  that  case,  refer  to  the  resurrection  of  the  few  believers  who 
appeared  after  the  resurrection  of  Christ  (Matt,  xxvii.  52,  53).  Undoubt- 
edly, Jesus  admits  a  distinction  between  the  first  resurrection  and  the 
universal  resurrection  (Luke  xiv.  14:  to  the  resurrection  of  the  just ;  comp. 
Apoc.  xx.  G);  but  the  explanation  which  Olshausen  gives  of  the  words: 
and  now  is,  is  not  open  to  discussion.  Nothing  in  the  text  authorizes 
us  to  see  here  the  indication  of  a  resurrection  different  from  that  of 
ver.  24.  The  following  verse  explains  the  secret  of  the  power  which 
the  voice  of  Christ  will  display  in  the  hour  which  is  about  to  strike  for 
the  earth. 


476  SECOND  TART. 

Ver.  26.  "For,  as1  the  Father  hath  life  in  himself,  so  hath  he  also  given  to 
the  Son  to  have  life  in  himself."  The  emphasis  is  on  the  twice-repeated 
words  h  iavTu  (in  himself),  which  terminate  the  two  clauses.  The  Son  not 
only  has  a  part  in  life,  like  the  creature  :  He  possesses  it  in  Himself,  and 
He  is  thereby  the  source  of  it,  like  the  Father  Himself — hence  His  voice 
can  give  or  restore  life  (ver.  25;  comp.  i.  3,  4).  But,  on  the  other  hand, 
this  divine  prerogative  the  Son  does  not  possess  except  as  a  gift  of  the 
Father.  Here  is  the  boldest  paradox  which  it  is  possible  to  declare.  Life 
in  Himself,  what  in  theology  is  called  aseity,  self-existence,  given  to  the 
Son !  We  could  not  get  an  insight  into  the  solution  of  this  contradiction, 
unless  we  saw  an  analogous  contradiction  resolved  in  ourselves.  We  pos- 
sess, as  a  thing  given,  the  faculty  of  determining  for  ourselves,  that  is,  of 
ourselves  morally  creating  ourselves.  We  draw  at  each  instant  from  this 
faculty  moral  decisions  which  appertain  peculiarly  to  ourselves,  for  which 
we  are  seriously  responsible  before  God,  and  which  are  transmuted  into 
our  permanent  character.  It  is  through  making  us  a  gift  of  this  myster- 
ious privilege  of  free  action,  that  God  has  placed  us  in  the  rank  of  beings 
made  in  His  image.  What  freedom  is  for  man,  this  the  divine  faculty  of 
living  in  Himself  is  for  the  Son.  It  is  by  this  means,  also,  that  the  subor- 
dination of  the  Son  to  the  Father  becomes  an  act  of  divine  freedom,  and 
consequently,  of  divine  love.  By  the  gift  of  divine  independence  to  the 
Son,  the  Father  has  given  Him  everything;  by  His  perfect  and  voluntary 
subordination,  the  Son  gives  back  everything  to  the  Father.  To  give 
everything,  to  give  back  everything,  is  not  this  perfect  love.  God  is  love. 
Thus,  not  only  does  God  love  divinely,  but  He  is  also  divinely  loved.  The 
act  expressed  by  the  word,  idunev  (gave),  is  regarded  by  Tholuck,  Luthardt, 
Weiss,  etc.,  as  a  fact  falling  within  the  earthly  life  of  Jesus :  Jesus  pos- 
sesses, here  on  earth,  spiritual  life  abiding  in  Him,  and  can  communicate 
it  to  men.  But  if  this  were  the  full  meaning  of  this  word,  how  would  it 
harmonize  with  vi.  57,  where  Jesus  declares  that  in  His  earthly  condition 
"  lie  lives  only  by  the  Father,"  just  as  we,  believers,  live  only  by  Him.  It 
must,  therefore,  be  acknowledged,  that  He  is  speaking  of  an  eternal  gift, 
of  a  unique  prerogative  appertaining  to  His  divine  state  and  entering 
into  His  essential  Sonship.  The  spiritual  resurrection  of  mankind 
through  Him,  this  is  the  work  which  He  wishes  to  explain  in  this  pas- 
sage ;  this  work  is  yet  to  come  ;  it  implies  the  re-instatement  of  Christ  in 
His  divine  state  (xvii.  1,  2,  5).  This  expression  must,  consequently,  be 
applied  to  Him  in  so  far  as  raised,  as  man,  to  the  supreme  position  which 
He  enjoyed,  as  Logos,  before  the  incarnation.  It  is  from  the  midst  of  this 
glory  that  He  will  accomplish  the  resurrection  described  in  vv.  24,  25 
(the  hour  cometh)  ;  for  it  is  then  only  that  He  can  pour  out  the  Spirit  (vii. 
89;  xvii.  2).  With  the  spiritual  resurrection  and  judgment  is  closely  con- 
nected, as  a  second  divine  act,  the  judgment  together  with  the  external 
resurrection,  which  is  the  condition  of  it. 

Ver.  27.  "  And  he  hath  given  him  power  also 2  to  execute  judgment,  because 

1  tf  D :  •>!,  instead  of  axxnep.       2  A  B  L  Itpi«rii  Syrour  Cop.  Orig.  (twice)  omit  the  second  km. 


chap.  v.  26,  27.  477 

he  is  son  of  man."  Jesus  had  said  in  ver.  22,  in  an  indefinite  way,  that 
all  judgment  is  committed  to  Him.  This  word  all  judgment  included,  of 
course,  both  the  present  moral,  internal  judgment  and  the  final,  external 
judgment.  It  is  under  these  two  aspects,  taken  together,  that  this  idea  is 
reproduced  in  ver.  27,  which  thus  forms  the  transition  from  the  work  of 
the  spiritual  resurrection  and  judgment  (vv.  24-20),  to  that  of  the  outward 
resurrection  and  judgment  (vv.  28,  29).  Jesus  adds  to  the  idea  of  ver.  22 
a  new  limitation :  that  the  function  of  judge  is  committed  to  Him  inas- 
much as  He  is  Son  of  man.  The  second  mi  also,  although  omitted  by  B, 
is  perhaps  authentic.  It  emphasizes  the  relation  between  the  character 
of  judge  and  that  of  Son  of  man.  What  is  this  relation?  It  has  been 
understood  in  a  great  variety  of  ways.  According  to  Liicke  the  meaning 
is :  Because  He  is  the  Messiah  and  judging  is  (according  to  Dan.  vii.)  a 
Messianic  function.  But  in  that  case  the  article  before  the  words  Son  of 
man  could  not  be  wanting.  Without  the  article,  this  expression  signifies 
simply  :  a  son  of  man.  Keil  denies  this  and  thinks  that  the  absence  of  the 
article  may  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  the  words  are  here  the  predicate, 
designating  a  quality,  rather  than  a  person.  He  explains  therefore: 
Because  He  is  mediator  between  God  and  man,  author  of  salvation  and 
consequently  judge;  for  judgment  forms  a  part  of  the  salvation.  But  the 
absence  of  the  article  is  not  justified  by  this,  and  the  idea  of  salvation  is 
arbitrarily  introduced  here.  Beyschlag  understands :  Because  He  is  the 
perfect  man,  the  ideal  man,  fitted  to  serve  as  the  standard  for  the  moral 
Avorth  of  all  others.  But  the  article  could  not,  any  more  than  in  the  other 
case,  be  wanting  with  this  meaning.  The  term,  Son  of  man,  without  the 
article  sets  forth  simply  the  quality  of  man  which  He  shares  with  all  other 
men.  Lange  :  Because,  as  a  son  of  man,  He  can  have  compassion  on  our 
weakness.  But  this  would  be  to  deny  to  God  the  feeling  of  compassion, 
while  the  Scriptures  say  expressly :  "  Like  as  a  Father  pitieth  .  .  .  . ,  so 
the  Lord  pitieth  ....  for  he  knoiveth  our  frame  "  (Ps.  cii.  13).  Heb.  ii.  18 
cannot  be  cited  as  parallel,  since  the  question  there  is  of  intercession,  not 
of  judgment.  De  Weite :  Because  the  Father,  as  being  the  hidden  God, 
cannot  judge.  Reuss,  nearly  the  same  :  "  In  the  system,  God,  in  Himself, 
docs  not  place  Himself  in  contact  with  the  world  which  He  is  to  judge  ; 
He  makes  Himself  man  for  this."  '  This  reason  would  apply  to  the  God 
of  Philo,  not  to  the  God  of  Jesus  Christ  and  of  St.  John ;  the  latter  is  a 
Father,  who  is  in  direct  relations  with  the  world  and  humanity ;  He  begets 
children  for  life  (i.  13) ;  He  loves  the  world  (iii.  16) ;  He  even  testifies  by 
outward  miracles  in  favor  of  the  Son;  He  drarvs  souls  to  Christ,  etc. 
Such  a  God  might  also,  if  He  wished,  judge  the  world.  Besides,  as 
Luthardt  observes,  the  opposite  of  the  hidden  God  would  not  be  the  Son 
of  man,  but  the  revealed  God,  the  Word,  the  Son  of  God,  or,  speaking 
absolutely,  the  Son.    Meyer  and   Weiss :  Because  Jesus  is,  as  man,  the 

«  Keuss.  in  his  last  work  (Theol.  johann.),  man  could  not  Himself  exorcise  )t."  Bui  the 

quotes  without  remark  this  very  different  ex-  special  relation  between  the  hm  given  and  the 

planation:  "God  was  obliged  to  cWe^ifejudg-  because,  would,  in  that   case,  need   to   have 

ment  to  Him,  because  He  in  His  quality  as  been  more  distinctly  marked. 


478  SECOND   PART. 

executor  and  proclaimer  of  salvation,  on  which  depends  the  decision  of 
each  man's  destiny.  There  is  the  same  reason  against  this  explanation, 
as  against  that  of  Keil.  The  quality  of  man  is  made  prominent  here  for 
the  purpose  of  explaining,  not  the  dignity  of  Saviour,  but  that  of  judge. 
Holtzmann :  Because  He  can  make  the  revelation  of  the  divine  holiness 
shine  forth  before  the  eyes  of  men  through  the  fact  of  His  human  appear- 
ance. But  God  is  able  directly  to  manifest  His  holiness  to  the  human 
conscience,  as  is  many  times  seen  in  the  Old  Testament.  Hengstenberg  : 
to  recompense  Him  for  becoming  man.  Strange  reward !  In  this  embar- 
rassment; the  Peschito  (SyrBCh),  some  Mjj.  (E.  M  A.),  and  Chrysostom  have 
recourse  to  a  desperate  expedient ;  they  connect  these  words  :  "  because 
he  is  son  ..."  with  the  following  verse  :  "  Because  He  is  a  Son  of  man, 
marvel  not."  But  what  is  there  in  the  context  leading  us  to  suppose  an  aston- 
ishment respecting  this  point  ?  Is  it  then  so  difficult  to  grasp  the  thought 
of  Jesus?  The  judgment  of  humanity  is  a  homage  rendered  to  the  holi- 
ness of  God ;  but  this  homage,  in  order  really  to  make  reparation  for  the 
outrage  committed,  must  proceed  from  the  race  itself  which  has  com- 
mitted the  offense.  Judgment,  in  this  view,  is  exactly  on  the  same  line 
with  expiation,  of  which  it  serves  as  the  complement.  Expiation  is  the 
reparation  freely  offered  by  believing  humanity  ;  judgment  is  the  satis- 
faction which  God  takes  from  humanity  which  has  refused  Him  this 
reparation.  In  the  one,  as  in  the  other,  of  these  acts,  a  man  must 
preside. 

Vv.  28,  29.  "  Marvel  not  at  this:  for  the  hour  is  coming  when  all  who  are  in 
the  tombs  shall  hear  his  voice  and  shall  come  forth,  29,  those  who  have  done  good, 
unto  a  resurrection  of  life,  those  ivho  have  done  evil,  unto  a  resurrection  of 
judgment.'"  .The  Lord  reaches  here  the  more  outward  domain,  both  as 
to  the  resurrection  (ver.  28),  and  as  to  the  judgment  (ver.  29).  It 
is  impossible,  indeed,  not  to  refer  ver.  28  to  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead,  in  the  proper  sense.  1.  The  question  is  of  a  wholly  future  event; 
for  Jesus  purposely  omits  here  the  words  :  ml  vvv  eori,  and  now  is, 
of  ver.  25.  2.  He  does  not  merely  say,  the  dead  (as  in  ver.  25) ;  He  uses 
the  expression  :  those  who  are  in  the  tombs,  an  expression  which  must,  of 
course,  be  taken  in  the  strict  sense.  3.  No  more  does  He  say  :  those  who 
shall  hear  (ver.  25),  an  expression  which  implies  a  selection  between  two 
classes,  but :  All  those  who  are  in  the  graves  shall  hear ;  that  is  to  say,  the 
whole,  number  of  the  dead,  4.  Finally,  He  does  not  speak,  as  previously, 
of  a  single  result :  life;  but  of  two  opposite  results  which  that  resurrec- 
tion will  have  (ver.  29).  Jesus  rises,  therefore,  from  the  highest  act  of  au- 
thority (ktjovoia),  the  judgment,  to  the  highest  act  of  power  (dbvauis),  the  res- 
urrection of  the  bodj' ;  and  this  is  the  way  in  which  He  reasons  :  "  Mar- 
vel not  because  I  attribute  to  myself  the  right  of  judging  (ver.  27),  for  behold 
the  display  of  divine  power  which  it  shall  one  day  be  given  me  to  make: 
to  bring  all  mankind  out  of  the  grave."  Lucke  gives  quite  another  turn  to 
the  thought  of  Jesus  :  "  You  will  cease  to  be  astonished  that  judgment  is 
given  to  me,  if  you  call  to  mind  that  as  Son  of  man  (as  Messiah),  it  is  I 
who  accomplish  the  resurrection."    Jesus  according  to  his  view,  makes 


chap.  v.  28,  29.  479 

His  starting  point,  as  from  a  thing  well  known  and  acknowledged,  from 
an  article  of  Jewish  theology,  according  to  which  the  Messiah  is  the  one 
who  is  to  raise  mankind  from  the  dead.  But  it  is  still  doubtful  whether, 
at  the  time  of  Jesus,  the  work  of  the  resurrection  was  ascribed  to  the 
Messiah.  Even  the  later  Jewish  theology  shows  itself  very  much  divided 
on  this  point.  Some  ascribe  this  act  to  the  omnipotent  God,  others  to  the 
Messiah  (Eisenmenger,  Entdeckt,  Judenth.  Th.  II.  pp.  897-899).  This  me- 
chanical appeal  to  a  Jewish  doctrine  is,  moreover,  little  in  accord  with  the 
ever  original  character  of  the  testimony  of  Jesus.  Finally,  the  meaning 
given  by  Lucke  implies  a  false  interpretation  of  the  term  son  of  man,  ver. 
27.  There  is  great  force  in  the  words  :  shall  hear  His  voice.  "  This  voice 
which  sounds  in  your  ears  at  this  moment,  will  be  the  one  that  shall 
awake  you  from  the  sleep  of  death  and  cause  you  to  come  forth  from  the 
tomb.  Marvel  not,  therefore,  that  1  claim  to  possess  both  the  authority 
to  judge  and  the  power  to  raise  from  the  dead  spiritually."  Thus  the  last 
convulsion  of  the  physical  world,  the  universal  resurrection,  will  be  the 
work  of  that  same  human  will  which  shall  have  renewed  the  moral  world 
— that  of  the  Son  of  Man.  "  Since  death  came  by  man,"  says  St.  Paul  with 
precisely  the  same  meaning,  "  the.  resurrection  of  the  dead  comes  also  by  man  " 
(1  Cor.  xv.  21).  No  doubt,  it  might  be  said  to  Jesus:  All  these  are  only 
assertions  on  thy  part.  But  we  must  not  forget  that  behind  these  affirm- 
ations there  was  a  fact — namely,  "Arise  and  walk,"  immediately  followed 
by  a  result,  which  was  at  once  the  text  of  this  discourse  and  its  point  of 
support.  The  twenty-ninth  verse  concludes  this  whole  development  by 
the  idea  of  the  final  judgment,  of  which  the  resurrection  of  the  body  is 
the  condition.  To  be  judged,  the  dead  must  be  revived  in  the  fullness  of 
their  consciousness  and  of  their  personality,  which  implies  their  restora- 
tion to  bodily  existence.  We  must  not  translate  :  "Those  who  shall  have 
done  good,  evil  works,"  but :  "  the  good,  the  evil  works."  In  these  two  ex- 
pressions is  declared,  as  Keil  says,  the  total  result  of  the  life  in  good  or 
evil.  In  the  former  of  these  expressions  are  included  the  moral  sincerity 
which  leads  to  faith  (iii.  21),  the  act  of  faith  itself,  when  the  hour  of  call- 
ing for  it  has  come,  finally,  all  the  fruits  of  sanetification  which  result 
from  faith.  The  latter  comprehends  the  natural  inward  depravity  which 
alienates  from  faith,  unbelief  which  voluntarily  takes  sides  with  sin 
against  the  light  (iii.  19,  20),  finally,  all  the  inevitable,  immoral  conse- 
quences of  such  a  choice.  On  the  use  of  the  word  notelv  with  ayada  and 
vpdaativ  with  tpavXa,  see  on  iii.  20.  The  expression  resurrection  of  life  is  ex- 
plained by  the  opposite  term  :  resurrection  of  judgment.  The  latter  can 
only  signify  :  resurrection  loading  to  judgment;  the  former,  only;  resur- 
rection introducing  to  the  fullness  of  life,  and  that  without  any  further 
necessity  of  a  judgment  in  order  to  decide  this  favorable  result.  Luthardt 
and  Weiss  take  the  genitive  (ww,  of  life,  as  a  limiting  word  of  cause  or 
quality:  a  resurrection  which  results  from  life  (spiritual)  already  possessed 
(vv.  24,  2o),  or  which  is  appropriate  to  that  life.  But  there  are  degrees  in 
the  development  of  life,  and  if  this  resurrection,  on  the  one  hand,  pre- 
supposes life,  it  may  also,  on  the  other  hand,  have  life  as  its  result.    Hare 


480  SECOND   PART. 

also  we  must  avoid  translating  npioie,  with  Osterwald,  Arnaud,  etc.,  by  con- 
demnation. 

Reuss  maintains  that  the  spiritual  resurrection  is  in  this  passage  declared  to  be 
"greater  and  more  important  than  the  physical  resurrection"  (see  on  ver.  20) ;  and 
in  his  attempt  to  make  this  idea  accord  with  the:  '' Marvel  not,"  of  ver.  28,  which 
implies  the  opposite,  the  following  is  the  meaning  which  he  gives  to  these  words: 
"  Marvel  not  that  I  speak  to  you,  as  I  have  just  been  doing,  of  a  moral  resurrec- 
tion which  must  precede  the  physical  resurrection.  For  you  hold  yourselves  that 
the  Messiah  is  to  accomplish  the  latter ;  and  this  is  in  your  eyes  the  more  aston- 
ishing." But  these  words  in  your  eyes  are  an  importation  of  the  commentator, 
intended  to  justify  his  system,  according  to  which  he  has  been  able  to  write  re- 
specting the  fourth  Gospel  that  line,  in  manifest  contradiction  to  the  real- 
ity (vv.  28,  29)  :  "  The  'idea  of  a  future  and  universal  judgment  is  repudiated  as 
something  superfluous  "  (II.,  p.  559).  Scholten,  feeling  the  powerlessness  of  every 
exegetical  expedient  to  reach  the  end  which  is  pursued,  that  of  causing  every 
trace  of  the  ordinary  eschatology  to  disappear  from  our  Gospel,  declares  vv.  28, 
29  to  be  unauthentic,  which  verses,  nevertheless,  are  not  wanting  in  any  docu- 
ment. He  reasons  thus :  the  activity  of  Jesus  extending,  according  to  pseudo- 
John,  only  to  men  who  are  in  this  life  .  .  .  ,  vv.  28,  29,  must  be  interpolated." 
Convenient  method  !  When  they  do  not  find  the  Gospel  such  as  they  wish,  they 
make  it  such !  Hibjenfeld  (Ei.nl.,  p.  729),  does  not  hesitate  to  affirm  that  our  pas- 
sage excludes  all  the  J  udreo-Christian  eschatology,  the  outward  coming  of  Jesus, 
a  first  resurrection,  etc.  But  even  though  our  passage  does  not  contain  all  the 
elements  of  the  picture,  it  does  not  absolutely  exclude  any  one  of  them.  Much 
more,  the  glorious  corning  of  the  Messiah  is  implied  in  ver.  28,  and  the  entire 
eschatological  drama,  which  the  Parousia  is  to  inaugurate,  is  summed  up  in  ver. 
29,  so  far  as  relates  to  the  final  residt,  which  alone  is  of  importance  here,  the  res- 
urrection and  the  judgment  as  works  of  Jesus. 

After  this  passage  (vv.  19-29),  the  development  of  the  idea  of  ver.  17  : 
"  My  Father  worketh  until  now  and  I  also  work,"  is  completely  unfolded 
and  Jesus  returns  to  the  starting-point. 

Ver.  30.  "I  can  do  nothing  of  myself;  as  I  hear,  I  judge  ;  and  my  judg- 
ment is  just,  because  I  seek  not  mine  own  will,  but  the  will  of  him  who  sent  me." l 
Can  ver.  30  be  connected  with  what  immediately  precedes,  by  the  idea  of 
judgment  which  is  common  to  this  verse  and  ver.  29?  But  the  present 
tense  :  I  judge  (ver.  30)  does  not  suit  the  idea  of  the  future  judgment  (ver. 
29) ;  and  the  first  clause  :  I  can  do  nothing  of  myself,  impresses  at  once  on 
the  thought  of  ver.  30  a  much  more  general  bearing.  We  are  evidently 
brought  back  to  the  idea  of  ver.  19,  which  served  as  the  starting-point  of 
the  preceding  development:  the  infallibility  of  the  Son's  work  finding  its 
guarantee  in  its  complete  dependence  on  that  of  the  Father.  As  Feuss 
well  says:  "The  last  verse  reproduces  the  substance  of  the  first;  and  the 
discourse  thus  is  rounded  out  even  externally."  After  having  ascribed  to 
Himself  the  most  wonderful  operations,  Jesus  seems  to  feel  the  need  of 

i  T.  R.  adds  waTpos  at  the  end  of  the  verse,  rejected  by  X  A  B  D  K  L  A  A  12  Mnn.  Its**"! 
with  EGHMSUV  Mnn.,  It»"i ;  this  word  is        Vulg.  Syr.  Cop.  Orig.  (three  times). 


chap.  v.  30.  481 

sinking  again,  as  related  to  the  Father,  into  a  sort  of  nothingness.  He 
who  successively  accomplishes  the  greatest  works,  is  powerless  to  accom- 
plish hy  Himself  the  humblest  act.  The  pronoun  ey&>  (I),  positively  applies 
to  that  visible  and  definite  personality  which  they  have  before  their  eyes 
the  unheard  of  things  which  He  has  just  affirmed,  in  a  more  abstract  way, 
of  the  Son.  This  is  the  first  difference  between  ver.  30  and  ver.  ID;  the 
following  is  the  second  :  In  order  to  describe  the  total  subordination  of 
His  work  to  that  of  the  Father,  Jesus  made  use  of  figures  borrowed  from 
the  sense  of  sight :  the  Father  shotvs,  the  Son  sees.  Here  He  borrows  His 
figures  from  the  sense  of  hearing :  the  Son  hears,  evidently  from  His 
Father's  lips,  the  sentences  which  He  is  to  pronounce,  and  it  is  only  thus 
that  He  judges.  Moreover,  of  the  two  divine  works  which  He  accom- 
plishes, raising  from  the  dead  and  judging,  it  was  especially  the  first  which 
Jesus  had  in  view  in  ver.  19,  in  relation  to  the  miracle  wrought  on  the 
impotent  man  ;  He  here  makes  the  second  prominent,  in  connection  with 
the  supreme  act  indicated  in  ver.  29.  The  sentences  of  which  He  speaks 
are  the  acts  of  absolution  or  of  condemnation,  which  He  accomplishes 
here  on  earth,  by  saying  to  one  :  "  Thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee"  to  the  other  : 
"  Thy  works  are  evil."  Before  declaring  Himself  thus,  Jesus  meditates 
in  Himself;  He  listens  to  the  Father's  voice,  and  only  opens  His  mouth 
after  He  has  heard.  It  is  upon  this  perfect  docility  that  He  rests  the  in- 
fallibility of  His  judgments,  and  not  upon  an  omniscience  incompatible 
with  His  humanity:  "And — that  is,  and  thus — my  judgment  is  just."  But 
there  is  a  condition  necessary  for  listening  and  hearing  in  this  way ;  it  is 
to  have  no  will  of  one's  own;  hence  the  "on  (because),  which  follows.  No 
doubt,  Jesus,  Himself  also,  has  a  natural  will  distinct  from  that  of  God ; 
His  prayer  in  Gethsemane  clearly  proves  it :  "  Not  my  will,  but  thine  be 
done."  But,  in  a  being  entirely  consecrated  to  God,  as  Jesus  was,  this 
natural  will  (my  will),  exists  only  to  be  unceasingly  submitted  or  sacrificed 
to  the  Father's  will :  u  I  seek  not  mine  own  will,  but  the  will  of  Him  that 
hath  sent  me."  From  the  ontological  point  of  view,  the  Monothelites, 
therefore,  well  deserved  to  be  condemned;  for  in  denying  to  Jesus  a  will 
distinct  from  that  of  God,  they  suppressed  the  human  nature  in  Him.  And 
yet  morally  speaking,  they  were  right.  For  all  self-will  in  Jesus  was  a  will 
continually  and  freely  sacrificed.  It  is  on  this  unceasing  submission  that 
the  absolute  holiness  of  His  life  rests,  and  from  this  holiness  it  is  that  the 
infallibility  of  His  knowledge  and  His  words  results.  He  declares  this 
here  Himself. — The  rov  izk^avrdg  fie  of  Him  who  sent  me,  is  not  a  mere 
paraphrase  of  the  name  of  God.  It  is  argumentative  :  the  one  sent  does 
the  work  of  the  sender. 

What  an  existence  is  that  of  which  this  passage,  vv.  19-30,  traces  for  us 
the  type!  Such  a  relationship  with  God  must  have  been  lived,  in  order 
to  be  thus  described  :  to  act  only  after  having  seen,  to  speak  only  after 
having  heard,  what  a  picture  of  fdial  consciousness,  of  filial  teaching,  of 
filial  activity!  And  all  this  attaching  itself  to  a  men'  healing,  accom- 
plished on  the  initiative  of  the  Father!  Do  we  not  see  clearly  that  the 
essential  idea  of  ver.  17  is  that  of  the  relation  of  dependence  of  the  Son's 
31 


482  SECOND   PART. 

work  towards  the  Father's,  and  by  no  means  that  of  the  Sabbath,  of  which 
not  the  least  mention  is  made  in  all  this  development?  At  the  same 
time,  this  passage  gives  us,  so  to  speak,  access  even  to  the  inner  labora- 
tory of  our  Lord's  thought  and  allows  us  to  study  the  manner  in  which  His 
word  was  produced.  The  miracle  performed  and  the  accusations  which 
He  excites  awaken  His  reflection.  He  collects  Himself,  and  the  profound 
relation  of  His  work  to  that  of  His  Father  formulates  itself  in  His  con- 
sciousness in  the  form  of  that  simple,  summary,  oracle-like  thesis  of  ver. 
17.  This  is  the  theme  which  He  develops  afterwards.  At  the  first  moment 
(vv.  19,  20),  He  remains  in  the  highest  generalities  of  the  paternal  and 
filial  relation.  Then  there  are  precisely  formulated  in  His  thought  the 
two  essential  works  which  result  from  this  relation  :  making  alive,  judging 
(vv.  21-23) ;  finally,  those  two  works  themselves  are  presented  to  His  mind 
in  a  more  and  more  concrete  form,  in  their  progressive  historical  realiza- 
tion ;  first  in  the  moral  domain  (vv.  24-27),  then  in  that  of  external  reali- 
ties (vv.  28,  2D).  Where  in  this  incomparable  passage  is  what  is  called 
religious  metaphysics  f  From  the  first  word  to  the  last,  everything  breathes 
that  sentiment  of  filial  abnegation  which  is  the  heart  of  Jesus'  heart. 

IT.  The  testimony  of  the  Father,  in  support  of  that  which  the  Son  renders  to 
Himself:  vv.  31-40. 

Jesus  had  just  ascribed  to  Himself  marvelous  works.  Such  declara- 
tions might  provoke  an  objection  among  His  hearers :  "All  that  which 
thou  affirmest  of  thyself  has  no  other  guaranty  than  thine  own  word." 
Jesus  acknowledges  that  His  testimony  has  need  of  a  divine  sanction  (vv. 
31-35);  and.  He  presents  it  to  His  adversaries  in  a  double  testimony  of  the 
Father :  1.  That  of  His  miracles  (ver.  36) ;  2.  And  that  which  is  found 
from  old  time  in  the  Scriptures  (vv.  37—40). 

Vv.  31,  32.  "  If  I  bear  witness  of  myself,  my  witness  is  not  true.  32.  There 
is  another  that  beareth  witness  of  me ;  and  I  know  1  that  the  witness  which  he 
witnesseth  of  me  is  true."  Perhaps  ver.  31  is  the  answer  to  an  objection 
which  was  actually  made  to  Jesus,  in  consequence  of  the  preceding  words. 
Similar  interruptions  abound  in  the  much  more  circumstantial  narratives 
of  the  following  chapters.  No  doubt,  the  testimony  Avhich  a  person  bears 
on  his  own  behalf  may  be  perfectly  true.  But  in  the  sphere  of  sinful 
men,  such  a  testimony  is  always  suspected  of  partiality  or  falsehood. 
Jesus  speaks- here  from  the  point  of  view  of  His  hearers,  who  regard  Him 
as  an  ordinary  man.  In  the  saying  of  viii.  14,  on  the  contrary,  He  re- 
sumes His  normal  position  and  will  claim  distinctly  the  exceptional 
authority  which  His  perfect  holiness  confers  upon  Him.  The  eyu,  I, 
might  signify  here :  "  I  alone  (apart  from  every  other  witness)."  It  is 
better  to  understand  it :  "I  myself,  bearing  witness  of  my  own  person." 
Everything  which  follows  proves  that  this  other,  whose  testimony  Jesus  is 
about  to  allege,  is  God,  and  not  John  the  Baptist,  as  de  Wette  thought. 
Vv.  33-35  are  intended  precisely  to  set  aside  the  application  of  this  saying 

1 N  D  It»"i  Syr1""  read  oiSarc  {ye  know),  instead  of  otSa  (/  know). 


chap.  v.  31-35.  483 

to  the  forerunner.  In  tho  second  clause  of  ver.  32,  this  word:  I  know: 
signifies:  "  I  bear  in  myself  the  inward  consciousness  of  that  filial  relation 
of  which  my  Father  bears  witness."  lie  means  to  say  that  for  Himself 
He  has  no  need  of  any  testimony.  The  reading  oidare,  you  know,  proba- 
bly arises  from  the  false  application  of  these  words  to  the  testimony  of 
John  the  Baptist.  The  expressions  irepl  i/nov,  nepi  tfiavroi,  concerning  mc 
concerning  myself,  repeated  three  times  (vv.  31,  32)  do  not  mean :  in  my 
favor,  for  me  [Rilliet),  but  quite  simply  :  respecting  me.  Before  saying  who 
this  other  is,  whose  testimony  serves  to  support  His  own,  Jesus  removes 
the  supposition  that  it  is  to  the  testimony  of  the  forerunner  that  He 
means  to  appeal. 

Vv.  33-35.  "  Ye  have  sent  unto  John,  and  he  hath  borne  witness  vnto  the 
truth.  34.  But  the  witness  which  I  receive,  is  not  from  man;  and  what  I  say 
unto  you  here,  is  to  the  end  that  ye  may  be  saved.  35.  He  was  the  lamp  that 
burnetii  and  shineth  ;  and  ye  were  willing  to  rejoice  for  a  season  in  his  light." 
The  testimony  of  John  the  Baptist  had  made  so  much  noise  that  Jesus 
might  suppose  that,  at  the  moment  when  He  was  saying:  "  I  have  another 
witness,"  every  one  would  think  of  that  personage.  Jesus  rejects  this 
supposition,  but  does  so  while  calling  attention  to  the  fact  that,  from  His 
hearers'  standpoint,  the  testimony  of  John  should  certainly  be  regarded 
as  valid ;  for  it  was  they  themselves  who  had  called  it  forth  (an  allusion  to 
the  deputation,  i.  19  ff.).  The  word  you,  ifulq,  at  the  beginning  of  the 
verse,  places  the  hearers  in  contrast  to  Jesus,  who  does  not  ask  for  human 
testimonies  and  contents  himself  with  being  able  to  allege  that  of  the  Fa- 
ther. The  perfect  /ue/napTvpqKe,  hath  borne  tvitness,  declares  that  the  testi- 
mony of  John  preserves  its  value  notwithstanding  the  disappearance  of 
the  witness  (ver.  35:  he  was,  etc.).  On  this  truth  to  which  John  bore  wit- 
ness, comp.  i.  20,  27,  29.  The  tyd>  tie,  but  I,  of  ver.  34  forms  an  antithesis 
to  the  you  of  ver.  33.  This  human  testimony  which  they  demanded,  is 
not  that  by  which  Jesus  supports  the  truth  of  His  own,  even  though  it 
was  favorable  to  Him.  But  does  Jesus  regard  the  testimony  of  John  the 
Baptist  as  purely  human?  Some  interpreters  escape  the  difficulty  by 
translating  ov  ?.a/il3dvu  in  the  sense  :  "  I  do  not  seek  "  or  "  I  am  not  ambi- 
tious of."  This  is  to  strain  the  meaning  of  the  expression,  which  merely 
means  :  I  do  not  make  use  of  it.  It  is  enough  if  we  take  account  of  the 
article  Tt}v  before  the  word  testimony  ;  "  the  testimony,"  means  here  :• "  that 
of  which  I  have  need,  the  only  one  which  I  would  allege  as  confirmation 
of  my  own."  John's  testimony  was  designed  to  direct  their  eyes  to  the 
light;  but,  when  once  the  light  had  appeared,  it  gave  place  to  the  direct 
testimony  of  God  Himself.  That  testimony  was,  indeed,  the  fruit  of  a 
revelation;  but,  as  Keil  says,  this  inspiration,  passing  through  human 
lips,  might  be  called  in  question.  Nevertheless,  Jesus  recalls,  in  passing, 
this  testimony  of  John.  It  is  the  care  which  He  has  for  their  souls, 
which  does  not  permit  Him  to  pass  it  over  in  silence  :  "  If  I  recall  it,  it  is 
to  the  end  that  you  (bfielf)  may  profit  by  it  unto  salvation.  It  is,  then,  for 
yon,  not  for  me." 

The  35th  verse  expresses  the  transitory  character  of  the  appearance 


s 


484  SECOND   PART. 

of  John  the  Baptist.    John  was  not  the  light,  the   sun  (i.  8) ;  but  he  was 
the  torch,  lighted  by  God  for  giving  light  before  the  day  came.    The  article 
the  before  the  word  torch  has  been  explained  in  many  ways.    Bengel  finds 
here  an  allusion  to  Sirach  xlviii.  1  :  "  the  word  (of  Elijah)  shone  as  a  torch." 
Luthardt  believes  that  John  is  compared  to  the  well-known  torch-bearer, 
who  ordinarily  preceded  the  bridegroom  in   the  marriage  feasts.     Meyer, 
Weiss,  Keil,  understand :    the  true  torch  which  is  designed  to  show  the 
path.     Perhaps  there  is  an  allusion  to  that  single  light  which  was  lighted 
at  night  to  illumine  the  house  (Mark  iv.  21).     We  might  see  in  the  two 
epithets  :  which  burnetii  and  shineth,  only  this  one  idea:  which  is  consumed 
in  shining.     But  it  is  more  simple  to  find  here  the  two  conditions  of  the 
usefulness  of  the  light :  to  be  lighted  and  not  to  be  covered  (Weiss).    The 
imperfect  f/v,  was,  proves  that,  at  the  moment  when  Jesus  was  speaking, 
the  light  was  already  covered.     For  there  is  evidently  an  allusion  in  this 
past  tense  to  the  imprisonment  of  John  the  Baptist.     The  second  part  of 
the  verse:   Ye  were  willing  ......  continues  the  figure.     Jesus  compares 

the  Jews  to  children  who,  instead  of  making  use  of  the  precious  moments 
during  which  the  light  shines,  do  nothing  but  frolic  in  its  brightness.  To 
rejoice  is  contrasted  with  to  be  saved,  ver.  34.  It  was  impossible  better  to  char- 
acterize the  vain  and  puerile  curiosity,  with  which  the  people  were  infatu- 
ated by  an  appearance  so  extraordinary.  Comp.  Luke  vii.  24:  "  What 
went  ye  out  into  the  tvilderness  to  see  f  "  Weiss  thinks  that  Jesus  meant  to 
indicate  the  hopes  which  had  at  first  been  excited  in  the  rulers  by  this 
appearance.  Can  this  be  in  accordance  with  Luke  vii.  30? — 'll^eh'/cars : 
you  pleased  yourselves  with  .  .  . 

Ver.  36.  "  But  I  have  the1  ivitness  which  is  greater  2  than  [that  of]  John; 
for  the  works-  which  the  Father  hath  given 3  me  to  accomplish,  these  very  works 
that  I  do*  bear  ivitness  of  me,  that  the  Father  hath  sent  me."  The  passage 
relating  to  John  the  Baptist  was  only  a  remark  thrown  in  in  a  passing 
way,  an  argument  ad  hominem  ;  Jesus  now  develops  the  fact  announced 
at  first,  ver.  32 :  the  testimony  of  the  Father.  The  kj6,  I,  is  like  that  of 
ver.  34,  the  antithesis  of  you,  ver.  33;  it  completes  the  preceding  by  add- 
ing the  affirmation  to  the  negation.  For  the  article  the,  see  on  ver.  3i:  the 
absolute  witness,  the  only  one  to  which  I  wish  to  appeal  here. 

The  absence  of  the  article  before  [letfa  is  explained  thus :  "  ilxe 
true  testimony,  which  is  a  testimony  greater  than."  In  the  genitive  to'v 
'ludwnv,  of  John,  is  ordinarily  found  the  abbreviated  form  of  comparison  : 
.  "  greater  than  that  of  John."  May  it  not  be  explained  more  literally  : 
"  greater  than  John,"  that  is  to  say,  than  John  testifying  in  my  favor  : 
John  identified  with  his  testimony.  Meyer,  Weiss,  Keil,  Iieuss,  etc.,  un- 
derstand by  the  ipya,  the  works  of  which  Jesus  speaks,  His  whole  activity 
in  general,  and  not  only  His  miracles.  Weiss  alleges  for  this  meaning 
the  whole  passage  vv.  20-27  on  the  spiritual  resurrection  of  humanity. 
But  the  spiritual  works  of  Jesus  do  not  come  under  the  perception  of  the 

i  X  omits  tj}v  before  ixaprvpiav.  3XBLT  read  SeSuxev,  instead  of  eSuKtv. 

2  A  BEGMA  read  nei£ov  (evidently  am  is-  '8ABD  L  some  Mnn.  reject  cyw  before 

take).  irotw. 


chap.  v.  36,  37.  485 

senses ;  in  order  to  believe  them,  they  must  have  been  experienced ;  they 
are  not,  therefore,  a  testimony  for  the  unbeliever.  Moreover,  at  the  mo- 
ment when  Jesus'  was  speaking,  they  were  still  to  come.  Finally,  we 
must  not  forget  the  starting-point  of  this  whole  discourse,  which  is  a  mir- 
acle properly  so  called.  Jesus  certainly  alludes  to  the  healing  of  the  im- 
potent man  and  to  all  the  similar  works  which  He  is  accomplishing 
every  day.  Meyer  concedes  this  explanation  in  the  passages  vii.  3,  21  and 
elsewhere ;  but  the  context  demands  it  here  as  well  as  there.  The  mira- 
cles are  designated,  on  the  one  side,  as  gifts  of  the  Father  to  Jesus ;  on  the 
other,  as  ivorks  of  Jesus  Himself.  And  it  is,  in  fact,  by  this  double  right, 
that  they  are  a  testimony  of  God.  If  the  Son  did  them  by  His  own  force, 
they  would  not  be  a  declaration  of  God  on  His  behalf;  and  if  God  per- 
formed them  directly,  without  passing  through  the  Son  as  an  organ,  the 
latter  could  not  derive  from  them  a  personal  legitimation. — We  may  hes- 
itate between  the  readings  idune  and  6e<5(jke,  both  of  which  are  compatible 
with  the  following  iva  teaeiuou.  The  object  of  this  verb  hath  given  is  :  the 
works;  God  makes  a  gift  to  Jesus  of  His  miracles.  Then  this  object  is 
developed  by  these  words :  (literally)  that  I  may  accomplish  them.  For 
these  miracles  are  not  given  to  Him  in  the  form  of  works  done,  but  of 
works  to  be  done.  This  is  brought  out  forcibly  by  the  repetition  of  the 
subject  in  the  words  :  these  very  works  which  I(Jyu)  do.  The  expression 
give  in  order  that  includes  both  permission  and  power.  As  it  is  from  this 
double  character  of  the  miracle,  as  a  gift  of  God  and  a  work  of  Jesus,  that 
the  testimony  results,  it  is  necessary  to  keep  in  the  text  the  word  iy6, 1, 
before  noiu,  which  is  rejected  by  some  Alexandrian  authorities,  and  which 
well  sets  forth  the  second  of  these  two  characteristics.  But  this  testimony 
of  the  miracles  is  still  indirect,  as  compared  with  another  which  is  alto- 
gether personal  (ver.  37) : 

Ver.  37.  "And  the  Father  who  sent  me,  himself1  hath  borne  witness  of  me.  Ye 
have  neither  heard  his  voice  at  any  time,  nor  seen  his  form."  It  is  clear,  what- 
ever Olshausen,  Baur  and  others  may  say,  that  Jesus  here  speaks  of  a  new 
testimony  of  the  Father :  otherwise,  why  should  He  substitute  for  the  pre- 
sent beareth  witness  (ver.  36),  which  applies  to  the  miracles  which  Jesus  at 
present  performs,  the  perfect  hath  borne  witness,  which  can  only  denote  a 
testimony  given  and  completed. — The  pronoun  avrog,  Himself  emphasized 
as  it  is,  strongly  sets  forth  the  personal  character  of  this  new  testimony: 
God  has  spoken  Himself.  This  is  the  reason  why  the  reading  avrdg  seems 
to  me  preferable  to  the  ekfIvoc,  he,  of  the  Alexandrian  authorities.  What 
is  this  personal  testimony?  Be  Wette  and  Tholuck,  understand  by  it  the 
inner  voice  by  which  God  testifies  in  the  heart  of  man  in  favor  of  the  Gos- 
pel, "  the  drawing  of  tfie  Father  to  the  Son."  But  it  is  impossible  from  this 
point  of  view  to  explain  the  perfect  hath  borne  witness,  and  very  difficult 
to  account  for  the  following  expressions,  JETts  voice,  His  form,  which  so  evi- 
dently refer  to  a  personal  manifestation.  Chrysoslom,  Grotius,  Bengel  (I 
myself,  in  the  former  editions),  refer  this  expression  to  the  testimony  of 

1  X  B  L.  am.  read  tKcivot,  instead  of  auTos  ;  D  :  ikuvos  iutos. 


486  SECOND   PART. 

God  at  the  baptism  of  Jesus,  which  very  well  answers  to  this  condition. 
But  objection  is  rightly  made  because  of  the  ov  .  .  .  7r«xore,  never,  in  the 
following  words  :  and  it  would  be  to  return  to  the  testimony  of  John  the 
Baptist,  which  Jesus  had  set  aside,  since  the  voice  of  God  had  not  been  heard 
except  by  the  forerunner  and  everything  rested,  therefore,  upon  his  testi- 
mony. We  must,  accordingly,  take  our  position  rather  with  the  explana- 
tion of  Cyril,  Calvin,  Liicke,  Meyer,  Luthardt,  Weiss,  Keil,  who  refer  ver.  37  to 
the  testimony  of  God  in  the  Old  Testament,  the  book  in  which  He  manifests 
Himself  and  Himself  speaks.  Vv.  38, 39  confirm  this  view.  But  how,  from 
this  point  of  view,  can  we  explain  the  following  clause  ?  A  reproach  has 
been  found  here  (Meyer,  Luthardt,  Keil) ;  "  You  are  miserably  deaf  and 
blind,  that  is,  incapable  of  apprehending  this  testimony ;  you  have  never 
inwardly  received  the  divine  word."  This  sense  suits  the  context.  But 
the  expression  :  "  You  have  not  seen  his  face"  would  be  a  strange  one  to 
designate  moral  insensibility  to  the  Holy  Scriptures.  Others  see  rather  in 
these  words  a  concession  made  to  the  hearers:  for  example,  Tholuck  :  "You 
have,  no  doubt,  neither  heard  .  .  .  nor  seen  .  .  .  ,  for  that  is  impossible ; 
it  is  not  this  with  which  I  reproach  you  (ver.  37) ;  but  you  should  at  least 
have  received  the  testimony  which  God  gives  in  the  Scriptures  "  (ver.  38). 
If  this  were  the  thought,  however,  an  adversative  particle  could  not  be 
wanting  at  the  beginning  of  ver.  38.  But  the  expression :  and  you  have 
not  in  you,  on  the  contrary,  continues  the  movement  of  the  preceding 
clause.  The  expressions  to  heir  the  voice,  see  th",  form  of  God,  denote  an 
immediate  personal  knowledge  of  God  (i.  18).  Jesus  uses  the  former  in  vi. 
46,  to  characterize  the  knowledge  of  God  which  He  has  Himself,  in  con- 
trast with  all  purely  human  knowledge  :  "  Not  that  any  one  hath  seen  the 
Father,  save' He  that  is  of  the  Father;  he  hath  seen  the  Father."  This  decla- 
ration ought  to  serve  as  a  standard  for  the  explanation  of  the  one  before 
us.  We  shall  say  with  Weiss :  There  is  not  here  either  a  reproach  or  a 
concession ;  it  is  the  simple  authentication  of  a  fact,  namely,  the  natural 
powerlessness  of  man  to  rise  to  the  intuitive  knowledge  of  God.  The 
thought  of  Jesus  is,  therefore  :  "  This  personal  testimony  of  God  (ver.  37a) 
has  not  reached  you,  first  because  no  divine  revelation  or  appearance  has 
been  personally  given  to  you,  as  to  the  prophets  and  men  of  God  in  the 
Old  Testament  (ver.  37b) ;  and  then  because  the  word  to  which  those  men 
of  God  consigned  their  immediate  communications  with  God,  has  not  be- 
come living  and  abiding'  in  you  (ver.  38)."  Consequently  the  personal 
testimony  of  God,  that  which  Jesus  here  means,  does  not  exist  for  them. 
God  has  never  spoken  to  them  directly,  and  the  only  book,  in  which  they 
could  have  heard  His  testimony,  has  remained  for  them,  through  their 
own  fault,  a  closed  book.  We  can  well  understand  why  in  ver.  37  Jesus 
employs  the  term  <j>uvij,  the  personal  voice,  the  symbol  of  immediate  reve- 
lation, while  in  ver.  38  He  makes  use  of  the  word  Myog,  word,  the  term  in 
use  to  denote  the  revelation  handed  down  to  the  people.  The  direct  con- 
nection of  ver.  37  with  ver.  38  by  mi,  and,  presents  no  more  difficulty  from 
this  point  of  view. 
Vv.  38-40.  "And  his  word  ye  have  not  abiding  in  you,  for  ye  believe  not 


chap.  v.  38-40.  487 

him  whom  he  luxih  sent.  39.  Ye  search  the  Scriptures,  because  ye  think  that  in 
than  ye  have 'denial  life ;  and  these  are  they  which  bear  witness  of  me.  40. 
And  ye  will  not  come  to  me  that  ye  may  have  life"  The  written  word  might 
have  supplied  the  place  of  the  personal  revelation ;  they  have  had  it  in 
their  hands  and  on  their  lips,  but  not  in  the  heart.  They  have  studied 
the  letter,  but  have  not  appropriated  to  themselves  the  contents,  the 
thought,  the  spirit.  Thus  it  has  not  become  a  light  lighted  within  them 
to  guide  them,  a  power  to  bear  sway  over  them.  Jesus  gives  a  proof  of 
this  inward  fact— it  is  their  unbelief  towards  Him,  the  divine  messenger. 
Undoubtedly,  there  is  no  argument  here ;  for  the  reality  of  His  divine 
mission  was  precisely  the  point  in  question.  It  is  a  judgment  which  Jesus 
pronounces,  and  which  has  its  point  of  support,  like  the  entire  discourse, 
in  the  miracle  which  He  had  wrought. 

The  39th  verse  may  be  regarded  as  a  concession :  No  doubt,  you  study 
the  Scriptures  with  care.  But  we  must  rather  see  herein  the  indication 
of  a  fact  which  Jesus  is  about  to  contrast  with  another.  "You  search  the 
Scriptures  with  so  much  care;  you  scrutinize  the  externals  of  them  with 
the  most  scrupulous  exactness,  hoping  to  make  eternal  life  spring  forth 
from  this  minute  study ;  and  at  the  same  time  you  obstinately  reject  the 
one  to  whom  they  bear  testimony !  "  We  take  the  verb  epevvare,  there- 
fore, as  an  indicative  :  you  search ;  as  do  Cyril,  Erasmus,  Bengel,  Liickr, 
Westcott,  and  now  also  Lutlxardt.  A  large  number  of  commentators  and 
translators  (Chrysostom,  Augustine,  Lutlier,  Calvin,  Stier,  Hofmann,  Keil, 
Ostervald,)  make  this  verb  an  imperative:  Search.  Jesus  would  exhort 
them  to  a  profound  study  of  the  Scriptures.  But,  in  that  case,  He  should 
not  have  said,  "because  you  believe  you  have  in  them  .  .  .,"  but  "because 
you  will  have  in  them;"  or  at  least  " because  you  yourselves  think  you 
have  in  them."  And  then  He  should  have  continued,  in  order  to  give  a 
ground  for  the  exhortation,  by  saying :  "  For  these  are  they."  The  verb 
kpewav,  search,  is  very  suitable  as  characterizing  the  Rabbinical  study  of 
the  Scriptures,  the  dissection  of  the  letter.  'EkeIvcu,  they,  still  with  the 
emphatic  and  exclusive  meaning  which  this  pronoun  has  in  John :  and  it 
is  precisely  they. 

The  copula  koI,  and,  in  ver.  40,  sets  forth,  as  so  often  in  John,  the  moral 
contradiction  between  the  two  things  which  unbelief  succeeds  in  causing 
to  move  on  together :  to  study  the  Scriptures  which  testify  of  Christ,  and, 
at  the  same  time,  not  to  come  to  Christ!  Thoy  seek  life,  and  they  reject 
Him  who  brings  it!  The  words  :  ye  will  not,  mark  the  voluntary  side  of 
unbelief,  the  moral  antipathy  which  is  the  real  cause  of  it.  We  find 
again  in  this  passage  the  sorrowful  tone  of  that  saying  preserved  in  the 
Synoptics :  "  Jerusalem,  Jerusalem,  how  often  would  I  .  .  .  .  Rut  ye  would 
not!"  This  passage  clearly  shows  how  Jesus  recognized  Himself  in  the 
Old  Testament.  He  beheld  there  so  fully  His  own  figure,  that  it  seemed 
to  Him  impossible  to  have  sincerely  studied  that  book  and  not  come  to 
Him  immediately. 

But  whence  arises,  then,  the  not  willing  pointed  out  in  ver.  40,  and 
what  will  be  its  result  ?   These  arc  the  two  questions  which  Jesus  answers  in 


488  SECOND   PART. 

the  words  which  close  the  discourse,  and  which  are,  as  it  were,  the  prac- 
tical application  of  it. 

III. — The  condemnation  of  Jewish  unbelief:  vv.  41-47. 

In  vv.  41-44,  Jesus  unfolds  the  cause  of  the  moral  antipathy  which 
keeps  them  away  from  Him ;  in  vv.  45—17,  the  terrible  consequences  of 
this  refusal  to  believe. 

Vv.  41-44.  "  I  receive  not  my  glory  from  men.  42.  But  I  know  you,  [and  I 
knoxu]  that  ye  have  not  the  love  of  God  in  yourselves.  43.  I  am  come  in  my 
Father's  name,  and  ye  receive  me  not ;  if  another  slmll  come  in x  his  own  name, 
him  ye  will  receive.  44.  How  can  ye  believe,  ye  who  receive  your  glory  from 
one  another,  and  seek  not'1  the  glory  which  cometh  from  God3  only.'1 — On  one 
side,  a  Messiah  who  has  no  care  for  the  good  opinion  of  men  and  the 
homage  of  the  multitude,  and  on  the  other,  men  who  place  their  supreme 
good  in  public  consideration,  in  an  unblemished  reputation  for  orthodoxy, 
in  a  high  renown  for  Scriptural  erudition  and  for  fidelity  to  legal  observ- 
ances (comp.  the  description  of  the  Pharisees,  Matt.  vi.  1-18;  xxiii.  1-12): 
how  could  this  opposition  in  tendency  fail  to  put  an  obstacle  in  the  way 
of  the  birth  of  faith  in  these  latter?  Weiss  thinks  that,  if  this  were  the 
sense  of  ver.  41,  an  eyw,  7,  would  be  necessary,  in  contrast  with  you  (ver. 
42).  In  the  same  manner  with  Wcslcott,  he  understands  in  this  way  :  Do 
not  think  that  I  am  speaking  thus  "  in  order  to  glorify  myself  in  your 
eyes  "  ( Weiss) ;  or:  "  as  the  result  of  spite  which  my  disappointed  hopes 
cause  me  "  (Westcott).  But  the  iyu  would  be  necessary  only  if  the  case  of 
Jesus  were  placed  second.  If  Jesus  had  meant  to  reply  to  such  a  suppo- 
sition on  the  part  of  His  adversaries,  He  would,  no  doubt,  have  said  :  //# 

6oKelre,  "  think  not  that  I  seek " — The  perfect  eyvuica  means :    "  I 

have  studied  you,  and  I  know  you."  Jesus  had  penetrated  the  depth  of 
vanity  which  these  fine  exteriors  so  much  admired  among  the  rulers 
covered. — The  love  of  God  denotes  the  inward  aspiration  towards  God 
which  may  be  found  in  the  Jew  and  even  in  the  sincere  Gentile. 
Rom.  ii.  7  :  "  Those  who  seek  for  honor,  glory  and  immortality."  (Comp. 
ver.  44.)  This  divine  aspiration  it  is,  which  leads  to  faith,  as  the  absence 
of  it  to  unbelief.  Jesus  states  precisely  here  the  thought  which  is 
expressed  in  an  indefinite  way  in  iii.  19-21.  In  yourselves  :  not  only  on 
the  lips,  but  in  the  heart.     ' 

Ver.  43.  The  result  of  this  contrast  between  His  moral  tendency  and 
theirs.  While  they  reject  Him,  the  Messiah,  whose  whole  appearance 
bears  the  seal  of  dependence  on  God,  they  will  receive  with  eagerness 
every  false  Messiah  who  will  act  from  his  own  wisdom  and  his  own  force, 
glorifying  man  in  his  person.  All  glorious  with  the  glory  of  this  world 
will  be  the  one  welcomed  by  these  lovers  of  human  glory.  In  the  name  of 
God  :  coming  by  His  authority  and  as  His  delegate.  In  his  own  name  : 
representing  only  himself,  his  own  genius  and  power.     'El.fy,  comes,  in 

1  X  omits  tv.  lK  10  Mini.  Italhi.  read  i^rovyrts,  instead  of  ^ijreiTe.        3  B  a  b.  omit  fleou. 


chap.  v.  41-45.  489 

its  relation  to  e'/j?.v8a,  I  have  come,  can  only  denote  a  pseudo- Messianic 
appearance.  According  to  the  Synoptics  also,  Jesus  expected  false  Christs 
(Matt.  xxiv.  5,  24  and  the  parallels).  History  has  confirmed  this  pro- 
phecy ;  it  speaks  of  sixty-four  false  Messiahs,  who  all  succeeded  in  form- 
ing a  party  among  the  Jewish  people  in  this  way.  See  Schudt,  Jihlitsche 
Merkwiirdigkeiten  (cited  by  Meyer).  You  will  receive  him  ;  comp.  2  Thess. 
ii.  10,  11.  The  application  of  this  expression  ;  anotlwr  to  the  false  Messiah 
Bacochebas  (about  132),  which  some  critics  have  desired  to  make  for  the 
purpose  of  proving  that  the  composition  of  our  Gospel  belongs  to  the 
second  century  (Hilgen/eld,  Thoma),  is  an  absolutely  gratuitous  supposi- 
tion, which  has  no  authorization  in  the  text. 

This  vicious  tendency  with  which  Jesus  reproaches  His  adversaries 
went  so  far  as  even  to  destroy  in  them  the  faculty,  the  possibility  of  be- 
lieving :  ver.  44.  The  pronoun,  {tpeig,  you,  signifies  :  men  such  as  you 
are  (vv.  42,  43).  In  the  last  words,  the  adjective  fiovov,  only,  may  be  con- 
nected with  the  idea  of  Oeov :  God  who  is  the  only  God.  Jesus  would,  in 
this  case,  characterize  God  as  having,  as  only  God,  the  right  to  bestow  the 
true  glory.  This  is  the  meaning  ordinarily  given  to  this  expression.  I 
think  that  it  is  more  in  the  spirit  of  the  context  to  understand,  with  Gro- 
this  and  de  Wette :  the  glory  which  is  received  from  God  alone,  from  God 
only,  and  not  from  men.  The  idea  of  these  verses  is  that  nothing  renders 
men  more  unfit  for  faith  than  the  seeking  for  human  glory.  But  as 
necessarily  as  the  current  of  Pharisaic  vainglory  bears  the  rulers  of  the 
people  far  away  from  faith,  so  infallibly  would  the  spirit  of  love  for  God 
which  inspires  the  books  of  Moses  have  directed  them  to  Jesus  and  led 
them  to  faith. 

Vv.  45-47.  "  Think  not  that  I  will  accuse  you  to  the  Father :  there  is  one 
that  accuseth  you,1  Moses,  on  whom  ye  have  set  your  hope.  46.  For  if  ye  be- 
lieved Moses,  ye  would  believe  me;  for  he  wrote2  of  me.  47.  But  if  ye  believe 
not  his  writings,  how  shall  ye  believe*  my  words."  After  having  unveiled  to 
them  the  moral  cause  of  their  unbelief,  Jesus  shows  to  His  hearers  the 
danger  to  which  it  exposes  them, — that  of  being  condemned  in  the  name  of 
that  very  law,  on  the  observance  of  which  they  have  founded  their  hopes 
of  salvation.  It  is  not  He,  the  Messiah  rejected  by  them,  it  is  Moses  him- 
self, in  whose  name  they  condemn  Him,  who  will  demand  their  condem- 
nation. Jesus  pursues  them  here  on  their  own  ground.  His  word 
assumes  an  aggressive  and  dramatic  form.  He  causes  to  rise  before  them 
that  grand  figure  of  the  ancient  deliverer,  to  whom  their  hopes  were  at- 
tached (elf  bv),  and  transforms  this  alleged  advocate  into  an  accuser.  The 
words  :  that  I  will  accuse  you,  show  that,  already  at  that  time,  a  sentiment 
of  hostility  to  His  own  people  was  imputed  to  Jesus.  It  was  His  severe 
discourses  which  gave  rise  to  this  accusation.  'Ean,  is  very  solemn  :  "He 
is  there,  he  who  ..."  The  words  :  on  whom  you  hope,  allude  to  the  zeal 
for  the  law,  which  the  adversaries  of  Jesus  had  manifested  on  this  very 

1  B  adds  Trpo?  tov  iraTcpa  (to  the  Father).  read   ttco-tcvct*  and    D    G  S  A   some    Mna. 

2  K  !  yeypa<t>ev   insteud  ot  eypa\)iev.  7rc<7Tt'V<7r)Te. 

•  Instead    ot  irt<TTtv<r€Te,  B   V   It*''*  Syr"" 


490  SECOND   PART. 

day ;  this  zeal  was  their  title,  in  their  eyes  an  assured  title,  to  the  Messianic 
glory.  "  It  will  be  found  that  this  Moses,  whom  you  invoke  against  me 
will  testify  for  me  against  you."  What  an  overturning  of  all  their  ideas  ! 
Meyer  and  Weiss  claim  that  the  words :  who  will  accuse  you  cannot  refer 
to  the  last  judgment,  since  Jesus  will  then  fill  the  office,  not  of  accuser,  but 
of  judge.  But  Jesus  does  not  enter  into  this  question,  which  would  have 
had  no  meaning  with  people  who  did  not  recognize  Him  as  the  Messiah. 
To  the  Father:  who  will  judge  by  means  of  Christ. 

The  two  verses,  46  and  47,  prove  the  thesis  of  ver.  45,  by  showing,  the 
first,  the  connection  between  faith  in  Moses  and  faith  in  Christ;  the 
second,  the  no  less  necessary  connection  between  the  two  unbeliefs  in  the 
one  and  in  the  other.  In  other  words :  Every  true  disciple  of  Moses  is  on 
the  way  to  becoming  a  Christian  ;  every  bad  Jew  is  on  that  towards  reject- 
ing the  Gospel.  These  two  propositions  are  founded  on  the  principle 
that  the  two  covenants  are  the  development  of  one  and  the  same  funda- 
mental thought  and  have  the  same  moral  substance.  To  accept  or  reject 
the  revelation  of  salvation  at  its  first  stage,  is  implicitly  to  accept  or  reject 
it  in  its  complete  form.  This  is  exactly  the  thesis  which  St.  Paul  devel- 
ops in  Rom.  ii.  6-10  and  26-29.  The  words:  wrote  of  me,  allude  to  the 
Proto-gospel,  to  the  patriarchal  promises,  to  the  types  such  as  that  of  the 
brazen  serpent,  to  the  Levitical  ceremonies  which  were  the  shadow  of 
things  to  come  (Col.  ii.  17),  more  especially  to  the  promise  Deut.  xviii.  18  : 
"  I  tvill  raise  up  unto  them  a  prophet  like  unto  thee;  " — this  last  promise,  while 
including  the  sending  of  all  the  prophets  who  followed  Moses,  finds  its 
consummation  in  Jesus  Christ. —  Ye  would  believe  on  me :  in  me  as  the  one 
whom  Moses  thus  announced.  In  truth,  many  of  the  prophecies  had  not 
yet  found  in  Jesus  their  fulfillment.  But  we  must  think  especially  of  the 
spirit  of  holiness  in  the  law  of  Moses  and  the  theocratic  institutions, 
which  found  in  Jesus  its  full  realization.  Moses  tended  to  awaken  the 
sense  of  sin  and  the  thirst  for  righteousness,  which  Jesus  came  to  satisfy. 
"  To  give  access  to  this  spirit,  was  to  open  one's  heart  in  advance  to  the 
great  life-giver  "  (Gess). 

Ver.  47.  On  the  other  hand,  unbelief  towards  Moses  carries  naturally 
in  its  train  the  rejection  of  Jesus.  The  essential  antithesis  is  not  that  of 
the  substantives,  writings  and  words,  but  that  of  the  pronouns,  his  and  my. 
The  former  is  only  accidental ;  it  arises  only  from  the  fact  that  the  Jews 
knew  Moses  by  his  writings  and  Jesus  by  His  words.  This  charge  of  not 
believing  Moses,  addressed  to  people  whom  the  alleged  violation  of  one 
of  the  Mosaic  commandments  threw  into  a  rage,  recalls  that  other  saying 
of  Jesus,  so  sorrowful  and  so  bitter  (Matt,  xxiii.  29-32):  "Ye  build  the 
tombs  of  the  prophets,  and  ye  bear  witness  thus  that  ye  are  children  of  those  who 
killed  them."  The  rejection  of  a  sacred  principle  sheltere  itself  sometimes 
under  the  appearances  of  the  most  particular  regard  and  most  ardent 
zeal  for  the  principle  itself.  From  this  coincidence,  there  result,  in 
the  religious  history  of  humanity,  those  tragic  situations,  among  which 
the  catastrophe  of  Israel  here  announced  certainly  holds  the  foremost 
place. 


chap.  v.  4G,  47.  491 

As  regards  the  historical  reality  of  this  discourse,  the  following  appear  to  us 
to  be  the  results  of  the  exegesis : 

1.  The  fundamental  thought  is  perfectly  suited  to  the  given  situation.  Accused  of 
having  done  an  anti-Sabbatical  work,  and  even  of  ascribing  to  Himself  equality 
with  God,  Jesus  justifies  Himself  in  a  way  at  once  the  most  lofty  and  the  most 
humble,  by  averring,  on  tbe  testimony  of  His  consciousness,  the  absolute  depend- 
ence of  His  work,  relatively  to  that  of  the  Father. 

2.  The  three  principal  parts  of  the  discourse  are  naturally  linked  together,  as  they 
6tart  from  the  central  idea  which  we  have  just  indicated :  1.  Jesus  affirms  the 
constant  adapting  of  His  activity  to  that  of  the  Father,  and  declares  that  from 
this  relation  of  dependence  between  Him  and  God  will  proceed  yet  far  more  con- 
siderable works.  2.  He  proves  this  internal  relation,  which  it  is  impossible  for 
men  to  test,  by  a  double  testimony  of  the  Father :  His  miracles,  a  specimen  of 
which  is  at  this  very  moment  before  their  eyes,  and  the  Scriptures.  3.  He  closes 
by  showing  them,  in  their  secret  antipathy  to  the  moral  tendency  of  His  work, 
the  reason  which  prevents  them  from  trusting  the  divine  testimony,  and  by 
declaring  to  them  their  future  condemnation  in  the  name  of  that  Moses  whom 
they  accuse  Him  of  despising. 

Instead  of  the  abstruse  metaphysics  which  has  been  charged  upon  the  dis- 
courses in  John,  there  remains  for  us  only  the  simple  expression  of  the  filial  con- 
sciousness of  Jesus.  This  latter  displays  itself  gradually  in  a  series  of  views  of 
imposing  grandeur,  and  of  an  unique  elevation.  What  renders  this  feature  more 
striking,  is  the  naive  and  almost  child-like  simplicity  of  the  figures  employed  to 
describe  this  communion  of  the  Son  with  the  Father.  Such  a  relation  must  have 
been  lived,  in  order  to  be  expressed,  and  expressed  in  this  way. 

Strauss  has  acknowledged,  up  to  a  certain  point,  these  results  of  exegesis. 
"There  is  not,"  he  says,  "in  the  tenor  of  the  rest  of  the  discourse,  anything 
which  causes  difficulty,  anything  which  Jesus  could  not  Himself  have  said,  since 
the  evangelist  relates,  in  the  best  connection,  things  .  .  .  which,  according  to  the 
Synoptics  also,  Jesus  ascribes  to  Himself."  l  The  objections  of  Strauss  bear  only 
on  the  analogies  of  style  between  this  discourse,  that  of  John  the  Baptist  (chap, 
iii.),  and  certain  passages  of  the  first  Epistle  of  St.  John  (Introd.,  pp.  106,  107). 
Strauss  concludes  by  saying :  "  If,  then,  the  form  of  this  discourse  should  be  ascribed 
to  the  evangelist,  it  might  be  that  the  substance  of  it  belonged  to  Jesus."  We 
believe  that  we  may  conclude  by  saying :  Jesus  must  have  really  spoken  in  this  way. 
The  principal  theme  bears  the  character  of  most  perfect  appropriateness.  The 
secondary  ideas  are  logically  subordinated  to  this  theme.  No  detail  turns  aside 
from  the  idea  of  the  whole,  or  goes  beyond  it;  finally,  the  application  is  of  a 
thrilling  solemnity,  as  it  should  be  in  such  a  situation,  and  closes  by  impressing 
on  the  whole  discourse  the  seal  of  reality. 

Renan  considers  that  the  author  of  this  narrative  must  have  derived  the 
substance  of  his  account  from  tradition,  which  is,  he  says,  extremely  weighty,  be- 
cause it  proves  that  a  part  of  the  Christian  community  really  attributed  to  Jesus 
miracles  performed  at  Jerusalem.  As  to  the  discourse  in  particular,  see  his  sum- 
mary judgment  respecting  the  discourses  of  the  fourth  Gospel  (p.  lxxviii.) :  "The 

i  Leben  Jesu,  I.,  2d  part.  The  expression  "in  ing  the  whole  of  the  discourse  ;  it  applies  to 
the  restof  the  discourse"  is  not  intended  to  an  exception  which  Strauss  had  himself  just 
limit  this  favorable  judgment  given  respect-       set  aside. 


492  SECOND   PART. 

theme  cannot  be  without  a  certain  degree  of  authenticity ;  but  in  the  execution, 
the  fancy  of  the  artist  gives  itself  full  play.  We  feel  the  factitious  action,  the 
rhetoric,  the  studied  diction."  But  factitious  action  betrays  itself  by  commonplaces 
without  appropriateness ;  have  we  met  with  them  ?  Rhetoric,  by  emphasis  and 
inflation;  have  we  found  a  redundant  word,  a  word  which  does  not  express  an 
original  thought?  Studied  diction,  by  the  ingenious  antithesis  or  the  striving  after 
piquancy;  has  the  discourse  which  we  have  just  studied  offered  us  anything  like 
this  ?  The  substance  and  the  force  equally  exclude  the  idea  of  an  artificial  work, 
of  a  composition  in  cold  blood. 

Finally,  let  us  notice  an  assertion  of  Rerille,  trenchant  and  bold  like  those 
which  so  often  come  from  the  pen  of  this  critic :  "  Tiiis  book,"  he  says,  in  speak- 
ing of  the  fourth  Gospel,  "  in  which  Judaism,  the  Jewish  law,  the  Jewish  tem- 
ples, are  things  as  foreign,  as  indifferent,  as  they  could  be  to  a  Hellenistic  Chris- 
tian of  the  second  century  .  .  .  "  1  And  one  ventures  to  write  words  like  these  in 
the  face  of  the  last  verses  of  this  chapter,  in  which  Jesus  so  identifies  His  teach- 
ing with  that  of  Moses,  that  to  believe  the  one  is  implicitly  to  believe  the  other, 
and  to  reject  the  second,  is  virtually  to  reject  the  first,  because  Jesus  is  in  reality 
nothing  but  Moses  completed.  The  agreement  of  the  law  and  the  Gospel  does 
not  appear  more  clearly  from  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  than  from  the  passage 
which  we  have  just  studied.  But  we  know  that  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  is 
universally  regarded  as  that  which  has  most  authenticity  in  the  Synoptic  tradition. 

1  Revue  germanlque,  I.,  Dec.  1863,  p.  120,  note. 


INTRODUCTORY  SUGGESTIONS 

WITH   REFERENCE  TO 

THE  INTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 

BY  THE  AMERICAN  EDITOR. 


The  intelligent  reader  of  the  New  Testament,  when  he  comes  to  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  is  at  once  impressed  by  the  difference  between  it  and  the 
three  narratives  of  the  life  of  Jesus  which  precede  it.  Each  of  these  ear- 
lier writings,  though  having  certain  peculiarities  of  its  own  which  distin- 
guish it  from  the  other  two,  is,  in  some  prominent  sense,  a  biography 
written  for  the  purpose  of  telling  the  story  itself.  If  there  is  a  further  end 
in  view,  as  undoubtedly  there  may  be,  it  is  rather  secondary  than  primary, 
or,  to  say  the  least,  it  is  left  to  the  reader  to  discover,  without  any  direct 
statement  of  it  on  the  author's  part.  But  one  cannot  open  the  Fourth  Gos- 
pel and  read  the  verses  of  its  first  chapter  without  realizing  that  the  book 
has  a  new  character.  The  writer  is  evidently  moving  in  the  sphere  of 
great  thoughts,  and  not  merely  of  a  biographical  narrative.  He  is  evi- 
dently intending  to  relate  his  story  for  an  end  which  is  beyond  the  mere 
record.  He  does  not  mean  to  commit  his  book  to  those  who  may  chance 
to  receive  it,  and  then  let  them  find  in  the  works  or  words  of  Jesus  what- 
ever idea  of  His  person  or  influences  for  their  own  spiritual  life  they  may 
be  able  to  discover  for  themselves.  He  has,  on  the  other  hand,  a  thought 
of  his  own.  He  has  studied  the  life  of  the  Master  for  himself,  and  he 
would  impress,  if  possible,  upon  the  mind  of  his  reader  the  conviction 
which  has  been  impressed  upon  his  own. 

What  is  this  conviction?  What  is  this  purpose ?  These  are  the  ques- 
tions which  immediately  present  themselves.  The  phenomena  brought 
before  us  in  the  book,  and  the  direct  statements,  if  there  be  any  such, 
which  it  contains,  must  furnish  the  answer.  If  we  look  for  these — reading 
carefully  from  the  beginning  to  the  end — we  discover,  first  of  all,  the  re- 
markable declarations  of  what  is  commonly  called  the  Prologue,  and  the 

equally  striking  words  of  xx.  30,  81,  which  close  the  work.     What  is,  if 

493 


494  INTRODUCTORY   SUGGESTIONS  ON 

possible,  still  more  remarkable,  we  find  that,  while  the  words  and  propo- 
sitions which  evidently  hold  the  most  prominent  place  in  the  Prologue 
disappear  altogether  after  it  reaches  its  termination,  the  last  verses  of  the 
twentieth  chapter,  just  alluded  to,  have  a  manifest  connection  with  these 
propositions  and  words.  These  last  verses,  also,  clearly  set  forth  the  pur- 
pose of  the  book.  The  phenomena  of  this  Gospel  are,  therefore,  the 
great  thoughts  of  the  introductory  verses  respecting  the  Logos,  the  story 
of  Jesus  which  forms  the  substance  and  contents  of  the  book,  and  the 
formal  declaration,  at  the  end,  that  the  author's  object  in  writing  is  to  in- 
duce the  readers  to  believe  with  regard  to  Jesus  that  which,  as  he  cannot 
doubt,  will  give  them  the  true  life  of  the  soul.  In  a  word,  he  is  moved  to 
write  a  new  Gospel  narrative,  not  merely  to  tell  once  more,  or  in  a  some- 
what different  way,  a  story  which  had  been  told  before,  but  in  order  that, 
by  telling  it,  he  may  prove  to  his  readers  the  truth  of  his  own  conception 
of  his  Master,  and  that  they,  by  this  means,  may  attain  to  the  highest 
good. 

Let  us  consider  the  Prologue  briefly  with  reference  to  the  plan  of  the 
work.1  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  two  leading  ideas  of  the  first 
eighteen  verses  are  those  of  ver.  1  and  ver.  14:  The  Logos  was  in  the  begin- 
ning, was  with  God,  and  was  God  ;  and  the  Logos  became  flesh  and  taber- 
nacled among  us.  In  connection  with  the  first  of  these  statements,  certain 
additional  declarations,  evidently  of  a  subordinate  character,  are  made  in 
vv.  3, 4;  The -Logos  was  the  instrumental  agent  in  creation;  with  reference 
to  the  living  part  of  created  things  He  was  the  life ;  and  with  respect  to 
the  part  capable  of  intelligence  and  spiritual  life  He  was  the  light.  He 
was  thus  the  source  of  all  existence,  of  any  sort,  which  any  portion  of  the 
creation  is  able  to  possess.  That  there  is  a  steady  movement  and 
progress  here  in  the  line  of  the  idea  of  revelation  seems  evident.  The 
movement  is  towards  the  spiritual  region,  and  naturally  so,  because  it  is 
in  that  region  that  the  author's  mind  is  dwelling.  These  earliest  verses, 
therefore,  indicate  what  the  word  Logos  in  itself  indicates,  whatever  may 
be  its  origin— whether  the  Old  Testament  or  the  Jewish-Alexandrian 
philosophy — namely,  that  the  thought  of  John  is  of  God  as  revealing 
Himself  to  and  in  the  world,  as  distinguished  from  God  in  His  unre- 
vealed  state  or  His  hidden  being.  The  Logos  is  the  revealer.  This 
revealer  was  working  in  the  world, from  the  beginning,to  the  end  of  giving 
the  true  light,  but  the  world  did  not  fully  lay  hold  of  what  He  offered  to  it. 

i  For  a  more  detailed  setting  forth  of  tho  ideas  of  the  Prologue  and  the  meaning  of  its 
leading  words,  see  additional  notes. 


THE   INTERNAL   EVIDENCE.  495 

"The  light  shineth  in  the  darkness ;  and  the  darkness  apprehended  it  not." 
Some  clearer  mode  of  manifesting  Himself  as  manifesting  also  the  light 
became,  therefore,  a  necessity;  and,  accordingly,  the  Logos  became  flesh. 
Without  attempting  to  determine,  at  this  point,  precisely  what  the  author's 
idea,  in  the  use  of  these  words,  is,  we  cannot  doubt  that  he  intends  to  repre- 
sent the  Logos  as,  in  some  way,  coming  into  human  life  in  the  person  of 
a  man.  This  is  made  clear,  hot  only  by  the  contrast  of  the  words  oap$ 
eyeveTo  with  the  propositions  of  the  first  verse,  but  also  by  the  peculiar 
phrase  eaar/vuaev  h  fiplv  and  by  the  words  we  beheld  his  glory,  glory  as  of  the 
only  begotten  from  the  Father.  Finally,  the  immediate  connection  of  vv.  17, 
18  with  ver.  14,  through  the  words  grace  and  truth  and  the  verb  kfyyt/oaro 
which  carries  in  it  the  idea  of  revelation,  show  that  the  person  in  whom 
the  Logos,  in  some  sense,  took  up  His  abode  for  the  purpose  of  giving  the 
clearer  light  which  men  needed  was  Jesus  Christ.  The  substance  of  the 
statement  of  the  Prologue  is,  accordingly,  that — in  some  way,  which  it  is 
not  necessary  at  this  point  of  our  discussion  to  discover  and  definitely  estab- 
lish— Jesus  Christ  is  the  Logos  who  was  in  the  beginning  with  God  and 
was  God,  and  who,  at  a  later  period,  became  flesh.  The  narrative  of  the 
earthly  life  of  Jesus  which  occupies  the  space  intervening  between  the 
Prologue  and  the  closing  verses — that  is,  which  really  forms  the  substance 
of  the  work — is  the  means  which  the  author  adopts  for  the  accomplish- 
ment of  his  purpose.  The  story  is  the  proof.  Instead  of  establishing  his 
proposition  that  Jesus  is  the  Logos  incarnate  by  arguments  appropriate  to 
a  doctrinal  treatise,  he  simply  gives  the  narrative  of  what  He  did  and 
said,  evidently  believing  that  the  life  will  bear  the  strongest  testimony  to 
the  doctrine. 

That  he  should  have  adopted  this  method  of  proof  was  natural,  because 
the  establishment  of  the  doctrinal  proposition  in  itself  considered  was 
not  the  final  end  which  he  had  in  view.  This  end  was,  as  he  himself 
states,  a  practical  one,  to  be  realized  in  the  life  of  his  readers.  They  were 
to  have  life  in  the  name  of  this  incarnate  Logos.  But  this  life  (Cwy)  was 
not  merely  to  the  view  of  this  writer  a  thing  of  the  future,  to  be  experi- 
enced in  eternity.  It  was  a  present  experience  of  the  individual  soul — 
the  life  of  Jesus  transferred,  as  it  were,  to  the  believing  disciple  and  made 
a  possession  of  his  own.  There  could  be  no  better  way,  therefore,  of 
accomplishing  his  twofold  purpose — the  doctrinal  and  the  practical — 
than  to  lead  the  reader  to  believe  the  truth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the 
Son  of  God,  by  giving  the  narrative  of  His  earthly  career. 

There  are,  however,  two  peculiar  elements  in  the  narrative  which  fur- 


496  INTRODUCTORY   SUGGESTIONS  ON 

ther  distinguish  it  from  the  narratives  of  the  Synoptical  Gospels.  The  first 
of  these  is  immediately  connected  with  the  doctrinal  character  of  the 
book.  As  the  story  is  told  for  the  purpose  of  proving  the  truth  just  men- 
tioned, it  is  viewed  everywhere  by  the  author  in  the  light  of  testimony. 
The  Greek  word  which  conveys  the  idea  of  testimony  occurs  in  this  Gos- 
pel in  its  verbal  form  thirty-three  times,  and  in  its  substantive  form  four- 
teen times.  It  is  found  in  almost  every  chapter,  and  almost  universally 
with  reference  to  Jesus.  Very  singularly  it  appears  in  two  places  in  the 
Prologue  as  bringing  out  the  witness  borne  by  John  the  Baptist — once,  im- 
mediately after  the  first  leading  statement  respecting  the  Logos  (vv.  1-4), 
and  again,  after  the  Nsecond  leading  statement  (ver.  14).  Then,  at  the 
opening  of  the  historical  section  of  the  first  chapter,  it  is  introduced  a 
third  time  with  a  detailed  setting  forth  of  what  the  Baptist  said.  It  is 
plain  that  the  biography  is,  as  we  may  say,  founded  upon  testimony  ;  and 
the  simplest,  or  even  the  only  explanation  which  can  be  given,  as  regards  the 
Prologue,  is  that  the  author  desired  to  connect  each  of  His  two  great  pro- 
positions with  that  witness  of  the  forerunner  which  was,  in  a  sense,  the 
accrediting  word  from  God  Himself.  We  find  the  word,  also,  in  those  cen- 
tral and  vital  chapters  of  the  first  main  division  of  the  book — the  fifth  and 
the  eighth, — in  which  the  evidences  for  His  claims  to  Divine  Sonship  are 
given  by  Jesus  Himself,  and  pressed  upon  the  attention  of  His  adversa- 
ries. Testimony  turns  the  minds  and  footsteps  of  the  earliest  disciples  to 
Jesus.  The  "believer  becomes  immediately  a  witness,  as  we  see,  for  exam- 
ple, in  the  case  of  the  Samaritan  woman.  The  apostolic  work  in  the 
present  and  the  future  is  to  be  that  of  testifying.  The  words  and  works 
which  Jesus  speaks  and  does  bear  testimony  to  Him.  The  Spirit  who 
shall  appear  after  He  is  glorified  shall  be  always  giving  His  divine  witness. 
The  author  himself  writes  his  book  as  one  who  has  seen  and  testified. 
When  we  discover  this  idea  thus  filling  the  book,  and  observe  at  the  end 
that  the  writer  has  evidently  selected  his  materials,  excluding  much  that 
he  might  have  inserted  ("  many  other  signs,  etc.,  which  are  not  written  in 
this  book  "),  we  may  not  doubt  that  his  principle  of  selection  was  con- 
nected with  this  idea. 

The  second  of  the  two  elements  referred  to  appears  first  in  the  verses 
which  follow  the  Prologue  and  which  extend  as  far  as  the  middle  of  the 
second  chapter.  This  passage  may  be  called  the  historical  introduction 
of  the  Gospel.  It  will  be  noticed  by  the  attentive  reader  that  the  entrance 
of  Jesus  on  His  public  ministry,  as  given  in  this  book,  is  described  in  ii. 
13  ff.    The  passage  i.  19— ii.  12  contains  only  an  account  of  the  coming 


THE  INTERNAL  EVIDENCE.  497 

of  five  or  six  persons  to  Jesus  while  He  was  still  continuing  in  His  private 
and  family  life.  The  story,  as  related  to  these  persons,  opens  with  thu 
mention  of  two,  one  of  whom  only  is  named,  who  were  directed  to  Jesus  by 
John  the  Baptist  and  apparently  came  to  Him  at  John's  suggestion.  If 
we  observe  closely  the  record  of  John's  testimony,  we  shall  see  that  there 
are  not  three  independent  statements  of  it  (i.  19-28;  29-34;  35  f.),  which 
are  given  merely  for  the  purpose  of  making  known  what  he  said.  But, 
on  the  contrary,  there  is  a  manifest  movement  from  the  first  to  the  third, 
in  such  a  way  as  to  show  that  it  is  for  the  sake  of  the  last  that  the  other  two 
are  introduced.  When  John  says  to  the  two  disciples  in  ver.  36,  "  Behold 
the  Lamb  of  God,"  the  absence  of  all  further  words  makes  it  evident  that 
he  must  have  given  a  more  full  explanation  of  the  term  on  a  previous  oc- 
casion. The  mind  of  the  reader  is  thus  carried  back  immediately  to  the 
preceding  day  (ver.  29),  when  he  said :  "  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God,  who 
taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world,"  and  then  added  the  account  of  the  way 
in  which  he  came  to  know  at  the  baptism  of  Jesus  that  He  was  indeed 
the  Lamb  of  God.  This  was  the  declaration  and  this  the  explanation 
which  they  needed  to  make  them  ready,  when  they  saAV  Him  again,  to  go 
to  Him  and  form  His  acquaintance.  But,  as  John  tells  the  company 
around  him  on  that  second  day  that  Jesus  whose  office  is  to  take  away 
sin  is  the  one  of  whom  he  had  said,  After  me  cometh  a  man  who  is  etc., 
and  that  he  had  himself  come  baptizing  with  water  in  order  that  this 
greater  one  might  be  made  manifest  to  Israel,  the  thought  is  again  carried 
back  to  the  witness  which  had  been  borne  on  the  first  day  (ver.  26,  comp. 
also  ver.  15).  The  first  day  is  thus  preparatory  to  the  second,  and  the 
second  to  the  third.  The  whole  story  centres  upon  the  two  disciples,  and 
the  Baptist's  testimony  is  given  because  of  its  bearing  upon  them.  The 
writer,  indeed,  suggests  this  even  by  the  careful  marking  of  the  successive 
days,  which,  as  related  to  the  testimony  considered  in  itself  alone,  could 
scarcely  have  any  importance.  The  result  of  the  testimony  in  the  life  of 
those  who  receive  it  is  thus  distinctly  brought  before  us;  and,  as  in  the 
fiaprvpia  of  ver.  19,  which  is  unfolded  in  the  following  verses,  we  have  the 
beginning  of  the  proof  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  the  Son  of  God,  xx.  31a,  so 
in  the  case  of  these  disciples  we  find  the  first  beginning  of  that  gaining  of 
life  in  His  name  through  faith  which  is  the  practical  end  to  be  secured  by 
the  proof,  xx.  31b.  Answering  to  the  element  of  testimony,  therefore, 
we  discover  that  of  experience. 

But  this  experience  is  confined  to  five  or  six  persons.     Indeed,  in  the 
verses  for  which  the  record  of  John's  testimony  prepares  the  way  (35-40), 
32 


498  INTRODUCTORY  SUGGESTIONS  ON 

it  is  limited  to  two.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  story  of  these  two 
persons  is  the  starting-point  from  which  the  whole  narrative  of  the  life 
of  Jesus  is  developed.  Instead  of  beginning,  as  Matthew  and  Luke  do, 
with  an  account  of  Jesus'  birth  and  genealogy,  or  as  Mark  does,  with  His 
baptism  and  entrance  upon  His  public  work,  this  writer  takes  his  depart- 
ure from  a  brief  interview  which  these  two  disciples  of  John  the  Baptist 
had  with  Him, and  the  first  impressions  produced  upon  their  minds  by 
what  they  heard  Him  say.  They  communicate  their  impressions  to  one 
or  two  others  and  persuade  them  to  come  to  Jesus.  Two  more  are 
gained  as  disciples  on  the  next  day,  and  then  the  little  company  go  to  the 
wedding-feast  at  Cana,  where  their  faith  is  strengthened  by  a  miracle. 
Then  the  public  life  and  work  of  Jesus  begin.  But  there  is  abundant 
evidence  that  the  record  of  this  public  life  and  work,  as  given  by  the 
author,  has  constant  reference  to  the  disciples,  and,  at  the  end,  he  sums  up 
the  whole  book  by  the  statement,  that,  while  Jesus  did  many  other  signs 
in  the  presence  of  His  disciples  which  are  not  written  here,  these  signs — 
these  vTjfitia  (or  miraculous  proofs  of  what  He  was)  which  He  did  in  their 
presence — are  written,  etc.  The  plan  of  this  Gospel  in  relation  to  this 
point  is  certainly  very  remarkable,  as  compared  with  that  of  the  Synop- 
tics or  with  the  ordinary  plan  of  a  biography.  No  reasonable  explana- 
tion can  be  given  of  it,  except  as  we  hold  that  the  writer  intended  to  con- 
nect the  evidences  that  Jesus  was  the  Logos  with  the  new  life  and  faith 
of  these  disciples.  But,  more  than  this, — the  opening  story  points  to  in- 
dividual experience.  How  are  we  to  account  for  the  placing  of  such  a 
little  narrative  at  the  beginning  of  the  whole  biography — for  the  develop- 
ment, in  a  certain  sense,  of  everything  out  of  it?  The  narrative  seems 
so  insignificant  in  itself  as  to  make  it  improbable  that  an  ordinary  histor- 
ian would  find  it  even  arresting  his  attention.  It  is  presented  with  little 
or  no  detail.  One  of  the  characters  in  it  is,  so  far  as  the  reader  discovers 
from  the  words  of  the  story  itself,  unknown  even  by  name.  Andrew  and 
some  one  else,  we  know  not  who,  went  to  Jesus  on  a  certain  afternoon  and 
spent  two  hours  with  Him,  and  began  to  believe  in  Him  as  the  Messiah. 
This  is  all.  But  on  this  the  future  narrative,  the  entire  book,  is  founded. 
How  impossible  it  seems,  that  a  writer  of  another  century,  or  removed 
entirely  from  the  experience  and  life  of  the  apostles,  should  have  opened 
his  work  in  this  way.  If,  now,  the  author  was  himself  the  unnamed  dio- 
ciple,  if  that  brief  conversation  with  Jesus  was  the  beginning  of  his 
own  faith,  if  the  new  life  came  into  being  in  his  soul  on  that  afternoon 
and  thus  the  event  here  mentioned  was  the  deciding  point  of  his  per- 


THE  INTERNAL  EVIDENCE.  499 

sonal  history,  everything  is  made  clear.  The  little  story  rises  into 
marked  significance.  It  may  well  be  the  foundation  for  all  that  fol- 
lows. The  author  gives  the  record  of  the  life  of  Jesus  as  he,  had  known 
it.  He  says  to  his  readers,  Let  me  tell  you  of  that  wonderful  man 
whom  I  lived  with  years  ago,  of  what  I  heard  Him  say  and  saw  Him 
do.  Let  me  carry  you  back  to  the  hour  when  I  first  became  acquainted 
with  Him,  and  take  you  along  with  me  through  the  subsequent  his- 
tory. Let  me  show  you  how  I  came  to  believe  and  how  I  grew  in 
my  belief,  and  I  hope  that  the  story  as  I  give  it  may  lead  you  also 
to  believe  with  an  earnest  and  saving  faith.  But,  if  the  writer  was 
not  the  unnamed  disciple,  if,  on  the  other  hand,  he  had  never  seen 
Jesus  or  the  apostles,  and  knew  only  the  life  of  a  hundred  years  later, 
this  story  has  no  meaning  and  its  insertion  is  inexplicable.  The  whole 
book,  as  related  to  its  beginning,  is  a  mystery,  if  this  meeting  with 
Jesus  was  not  a  vital  thing  in  the  author's  own  life.  It  breaks  forth 
into  clearness  and  light  and  has  a  wonderful  naturalness  and  power, 
so  soon  as  we  find  the  writer  of  the  narrative  in  the  disciple  whose 
name  is  not  given. 

The  fact  that  the  element  of  personal  experience  is  an  important  one 
in  the  book,  and  indeed  that  it  is  centered,  as  it  were,  upon  the  experi- 
ence of  the  writer  himself,  is  made  evident  also  by  other  indications. 
Among  these  the  following  may  be  particularly  mentioned. 

1.  The  great  prominence  given  to  the  word  tzigtevelv.  This  word  which 
occurs  only  thirty-five  times  in  the  three  Synoptic  Gospels,  and  one  hun- 
dred and  three  times  from  the  beginning  of  Acts  to  the  end  of  Revela- 
tion (excluding  John's  first  Epistle),  is  found  ninety-eight  times  in  this 
Gospel.  Around  it  the  whole  narrative  turns.  As  the  words  and  works 
of  Jesus,  the  declarations  of  John,  the  preaching  of  the  Apostles,  the 
work  of  the  Spirit,  the  Scriptures  and  the  voice  of  God,  are  all  viewed  in 
the  light  of  testimony,  so  everywhere  the  attitude  of  men  towards  this 
testimony  is  marked  by  the  verb  moTe'veiv.  If  they  receive  the  witness 
which  is  borne  to  Christ,  they  are  said  to  believe.  If  they  reject  it,  they 
do  not  believe.  If  they  are  partly  influenced  by  it,  but  yet  not  affected 
in  the  inmost  principle  of  their  life,  they  are  described  as  believing  (tniff- 
TEvaav),  but  not  so  that  Jesus  could  trust  Himself  to  them  (owe  kniemvev 
avrbv  avroig,  ii.  23,  24.  comp.  viii.  31  ff.).  If  they  grow  in  faith,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  Twelve,  they  are  repeatedly  Rpoken  of  as  believing— the  indi- 
cations of  the  context  being,  with  each  repetition,  that  the  word  has  a 
growing  fullness  of  meaning.     If  the  final  blessing  of  Jesus  is  recorded, 


500  INTRODUCTORY  SUGGESTIONS  ON 

it  is  a  blessing  on  those  who  have  not  seen  and  yet  have  believed.  If  the 
author  wishes  to  express  the  purpose  of  his  writing,  it  is  that  the  readers 
may  believe.  If  he  desires  to  tell  them  the  way  of  securing  eternal  life, 
it  is  in  the  words  "  that  believing  you  may  have  life."  Moreover,  this 
ever-repeated  word,  in  which  all  that  is  most  vital  to  the  human  soul  rests, 
is  the  verb, which  expresses  action,  and  not  the  noun.  The  substantive 
triarig,  the  doctrinal  word,  which  is  so  frequently  used  by  Paul  (nearly  one 
hundred  and  fifty  times  in  his  Epistles),  and  which  even  occurs  twenty- 
four  times  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  is  not  found  in  this  book.  The  author 
is  not  moving  in  the  sphere  of  doctrine,  so  far  as  the  human  side  of  truth 
is  concerned,  but  of.  life.  Indeed,  as  we  have  already  seen,  the  very  argu- 
ment to  prove  the  Divine  doctrine  is  the  life  of  Jesus.  What  can  be  the 
meaning  of  this  striking  feature  of  this  Gospel,  except  that,  to  the 
author's  mind,  the  living  experience  of  the  soul  was  the  thing  of  all  im- 
portance ?  And  how  exactly  do  the  closing  words,  which  give  the  object 
and  purpose  of  the  book  (xx.  30,  31),  answer  to  this  thought — I  write  that 
you  may  believe  the  doctrine  because,  and  only  because,  I  know  that  be- 
lieving is  the  gate-way  of  life. 

2.  Again,  if  we  look  at  this  verb  as  the  author  uses  it  with  reference  to 
the  apostles,  how  plainly  is  the  same  thing  indicated.  No  attentive  student 
of  this  Gospel  can  fail  to  see  that,  as  the  disciples  are  said,  again  and 
again,  at  different  points  of  the  history,  to  believe  in  view  of  what  they 
had  seen  or  heard,  the  word  believe  gains  a  new  fullness  of  meaning. 
There  is  a  steady  progress  from  the  first  day  to  the  last,  from  the  time 
when  Andrew  and  his  unnamed  companion  went  to  Jesus  for  a  two  hours' 
conversation  to  the  day  when  Thomas  exclaimed  "  My  Lord,  and  my  God," 
and  was  addressed  by  the  Master  as  believing.  One  can  almost  see  the 
growth  of  the  word  in  significance  as  the  successive  stories  are  read. 
Moreover,  the  same  thing  is  marked,  in  a  very  incidental  and  yet  striking 
way,  by  the  statements  which  occur  with  regard  to  certain  things,  that  the 
disciples  only  came  to  understand  and  believe  after  Jesus  rose  from  the 
dead.  What  more  vivid  picture  of  developing  faith,  and  thus  of  inmost 
personal  experience,  could  be  given  than  that  which  is  suggested  by  this 
word,  which  means  on  each  new  day  more  than  it  did  on  the  day  before, 
and  which  has  its  limits  during  the  Lord's  earthly  life  so  carefully  pointed 
out,  by  the  declaration  that  this  or  that  mysterious  thing  did  not  become 
clear  to  the  believing  soul  until  after  His  earthly  life  was  ended.  And 
finally  this  word  is  connected  with  the  author  himself,  if  we  hold  him  to 
be  the  companion  of  Andrew  in  chap.  i.  and  the  one  who  ran  with  Petef 


THE   INTERNAL   EVIDENCE.  501 

to  the  tomb  of  Jesus  on  the  morning  of  the  resurrection.  Evidently,  like 
Andrew,  he  was  led  to  believe  in  the  hours  of  that  first  interview.  Evi- 
dently, he  is  included  among  the  disciples  who  believed  in  consequence 
of  the  first  miracle  at  Cana.  But  what  progress  had  been  made,  when 
(xx.  8),  on  entering  into  the  tomb  on  that  Sunday  morning,  he  jsaw  and 
believed. 

3.  The  same  thing  is  shown  by  all  the  indications  which  prove  that  the 
disciple  whom  Jesus  loved,  and  the  one  who  is  alluded  to,  but  not  named, 
in  different  parts  of  the  book,  is  the  author.  It  will  be  unnecessary  to 
enter  in  this  matter  at  length,  for  Godet  has  dwelt  upon  it  largely  in  his 
Introduction.  But  we  would  give  a  brief  presentation  of  a  few  points. 
The  phenomena  of  the  book,  in  this  regard,  are  the  following :  hrst, 
that,  while  the  other  principal  characters  in  the  story  are  mentioned  by 
name,  and  always  thus  mentioned,  there  is  a  prominent  disciple  who  is 
only  alluded  to,  or  is  set  before  us  simply  by  means  of  a  descriptive 
phrase ;  secondly,  that,  while  it  is  not  made  so  plain  as  to  be  beyond  the 
possibility  of  questioning,  that  this  unnamed  person  is  always  one  and  the 
same,  yet  in  the  doubtful  cases,  which  are  only  two  in  number  (i.  35  ff., 
xviii.  15,  1G),  the  probabilities  strongly  favor  the  identification  of  the  per- 
son referred  to  with  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved,  who  is  mentioned  in 
all  the  others.  Godet  seems  to  question  this  in  the  second  case  (see  p.  30 
and  note  on  xviii.  15).  But  the  argument,  even  in  this  case,  is  a  strong 
one :  (w)  The  very  fact  that  elsewhere  there  is  but  one  disciple  who 
takes  an  active  part  in  any  scene,  such  as  this  one  here  takes,  and  yet 
is  not  named,  makes  the  supposition  probable,  that  here  also  the  same 
person  is  intended,  (x)  The  fact  that  this  "  other  disciple  "  (if  he  was  the 
author  of  the  Gospel)  was  known  to  Annas,  will  easily  account  for  the 
report  of  the  examination  before  that  dignitary  which  he  gives,  while  he 
omits  the  judicial  trial  before  Caiaphas  of  which  the  other  Gospels  speak. 
He  was  an  acquaintance  of  Annas,  and  so  was  admitted  to  his  house. 
But  not  being  on  the  same  terms  with  Caiaphas,  he  was  not  present  at  the 
trial.1  (i/)  The  relation  of  this  other  disciple  to  Peter  corresponds  with 
that  which  is  set  forth  elsewhere  as  existing  between  Peter  and  the  dis- 
ciple whom  Jesus  loved,  (z)  If  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved  was  the 
author  of  the  book,  and  therefore  familiar  with  the  scenes  of  the  time  and 
with  Peter,  it  is  scarcely  possible  that  he  should  not  have  known  who  this 
other  disciple  was,  and  have  given  his  name  (unless,  indeed,  lie  was  him- 

1  That  Annas  was  the  high  priest  referred  to  in  xviii.  19,  and  so  also  in  xviii.  15,  is  altogether 
probable. 


502  INTRODUCTORY  SUGGESTIONS  ON 

self  the  person).  Or,  on  the  other  hand,  if  the  author  was  of  a  later  time, 
we  may  ask  whether  it  is  probable  that  the  name  of  Peter's  companion 
on  this  occasion  could  have  been  forgotten?  The  story  of  Peter's  denials 
certainly  belonged  to  the  widest  circle  of  tradition,  and  the  whole  scene  con- 
nected with  them  was  a  marked  and  impressive  one.  The  only  objection 
which  may  be  urged  on  the  other  side  is  the  omission  of  the  article  6 
before  d/Uoc  fiadqrr/g.  But,  in  view  of  the  writer's  care  in  concealing  the 
name  of  this  beloved  disciple,  this  omission  can  scarcely  be  regarded  as 
having  such  weight  as  to  overbalance  the  considerations  mentioned.  As 
to  the  other  case  (i.  85  ff ),  the  points  already  alluded  to  are  sufficient  to 
show  that  the  companion  of  Andrew  was  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved. 
But  it  may  also  be  remarked  that  this  companion  of  Andrew  stood  appar- 
ently in  the  same  relation  to  him  and  Peter  in  which  John  stood,  as  rep- 
resented by  the  other  gospels,  and  that  their  acquaintance  or  association 
before  the  permanent  call  to  discipleship,  which  is  indicated  here,  corres- 
ponds to  that  which  is  hinted  at  in  Mark  i.  16-20,  i.  29;  Lk.  iv.  38;  v.  1  ff. 
But,  if  the  person  alluded  to  in  xviii.  15  and  i.  35,  is  the  same  with  the 
one  called  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved,  Ave  find  the  direct  statement  in 
xxi.  24,  that  he  is  the  author — a  statement  either  from  himself,  or  from 
others  who  declare-  that  they  know  his  testimony  to  be  true,  and  who,  by 
reason  of  the  present  jiaprvpuv  as  distinguished  from  the  aorist  ypdipng, 
must  have  written  their  postscript,  as  Godet  has  pointed  out,  during  his 
lifetime ;  we  also  find  the  direct  declaration  of  xix.  35  that  the  author  was 
present  at  the  crucifixion  ;  and  we  find,  once  more,  bearing  to  the  same 
end,  all  those  incidental  things  which  mark  the  narrative  of  an  eye-witness ; 
comp.,  for  example,  the  story  in  i.  35  ff.,  that  of  the  supper  in  chap,  xiii., 
that  of  the  early  part  of  chap,  xviii.,  etc.  With  reference  to  xix.  35,  Godet 
has  sufficiently  shown  the  untenableness  of  the  position  of  those  who  deny 
that  the  author  is  speaking  of  himself.  But  we  may  add,  in  a  single  word, 
that  the  introduction  of  an  entirely  new  person,  at  this  point  in  the  story, 
with  no  description  except  that  he  saw  the  scenes,  is  wholly  improbable, 
and  also  wholly  unlike  the  author's  course  elsewhere.  As  the  disciple 
■whom  Jesus  loved  has  been  mentioned,  ten  verses  earlier,  as  present  at 
the  crucifixion,  it  is  infinitely  more  probable  that  he  is  the  person  referred 
to.  If  he  is  not  so,  the  writer  attempts  to  give  emphasis  and  force  to  a 
statement  of  the  facts  mentioned  by  citing  for  them  a  witness  utterly  un- 
known to  his  readers,  and  then  attempts  to  confirm  his  testimony — this 
man  whom  they  knew  nothing  of— by  saying :  he  knows  that  he  tells  the 
truth.    Who  is  he,  is  the  question  of  all  questions,  if  his  testimony  is  to 


THE  INTERNAL  EVIDENCE.  503 

be  of  any  value.  But  no  answer  to  this  question  is  given.  Moreover,  this 
unknown  man  is  declared  to  know  that  he  says  the  truth,  that  you  (the 
readers)  also  may  believe.  Certainly,  no  intelligent  writer  would  ever  write 
such  a  sentence,  or  bring  forward  such  testimony.  Let  us  remember  that 
this  book  was  to  meet  adversaries  and  the  advocates  of  other  systems,  and 
was  to  exhibit  proofs  to  them.  What  would  such  a  proof  be  worth  ?  If, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  "  one  who  hath  seen  "  is  the  beloved  disciple,  how 
far  greater  the  emphasis,  and  how  far  more  probable  the  insertion  of  the 
verse,  in  case  the  author  is  making  a  solemn  declaration  of  his  own  know- 
ledge and  truthfulness,  than  if  he  is  simply  assuring  the  readers  that  that 
disciple  (who  was  another  person  than  himself  and  who  had  lived  many 
years  before  this  writing)  knew  the  truth  of  what  he  said.  There  is  but 
one  difficulty  in  the  passage,  if  he  means  himself— namely,  the  use  of  the 
third  person  of  the  pronoun.  This,  however,  belongs  with  the  other  ex- 
pression :  the  disciple,  etc.,  which  is  also  in  the  third  person,  and  is  occa- 
sioned by  his  desire  to  keep  himself  in  a  sense  concealed.  But  against  the 
other  views  of  the  sentence  every  difficulty, which  the  nature  of  the  case 
allows,  arises,  and  improbability  can  scarcely  reach  a  higher  point  than  it 
does  as  related  to  them.  The  verse  loses,  largely  or  wholly,  its  emphasis  and 
its  significance,  unless  the  author  is  the  one  who  makes  the  declaration. 
It  may  be  added  that  the  present  tenses  and  the  correspondence  in  thought 
•with  the  verses  expressing  the  purpose  of  the  book  (xx.  30,  31)  should  not 
be  overlooked — and  they  give  their  evidence  for  the  same  conclusion. 

Testimony  and  inward  experience — testimony  originally  coming  to  the 
writer  and  his  fellow  disciples,  and  their  own  personal  inward  experience 
as  they  received  and  believed  the  testimony ;  these  are  the  two  essential 
elements  of  the  author's  plan.  In  the  light  which  we  gain  in  connection 
with  them,  we  may  explain  the  peculiarity  of  the  Prologue.  Why  does 
the  writer  open  his  book  with  the  word  Logos,  giving  no  explanation  of 
its  meaning  and,  after  the  few  introductory  verses  are  ended,  making  no 
further  allusion  to  it?  The  use  of  this  term  with  no  explanation  must 
indicate  that  it  was  so  familiar  to  his  readers  as  to  be  readily  understood. 
The  laying  it  aside  at  the  close  of  the  Prologue  suggests  that  it  was  only 
intended  to  connect  the  book  with  inquiries  or  discussions,  which  were 
occupying  the  minds  of  thoughtful  men  in  the  region  where  the  author 
was  living.  If  the  subject  represented  by  this  word  was  a  wholly  new  one 
to  the  original  readers,  we  may  safely  say  that  the  phenomena  of  the 
Prologue  could  not  be  what  they  are.  Whatever,  therefore,  may  have 
been  the  origin  of  the  term  Logos  as  here  used,  wc  may  believe  that  it 


604  INTRODUCTORY   SUGGESTIONS   ON 

was  employed  in  the  philosophical  disputations  of  the  time — that  learned 
and  intelligent  men  were  asking  for  an  answer  to  their  questions  which 
were  represented  by  this  term.  We  may,  also,  believe  that  these  ques- 
tions had  reference  to  the  possibility  and  manner  of  God's  revealing  Him- 
self to  or  in  the  world.  The  writer  found  such  men  considering  this  great 
subject  and  giving  what  explanations  or  theories  they  could.  He  found 
them  in  uncertainty  or  in  darkness,  inquiring  with  no  answer  or  wan- 
dering off  into  the  gross  errors  of  which  Paul  speaks  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Colossians  and  errors  which  even  passed  beyond  these.  He  desired 
to  connect  his  book  with  their  inquiries  and  to  tell  them  that  he  had  dis- 
covered the  answer  which  they  needed.  The  man  with  whom  he  had 
lived  was  the  Logos.  He  was  the  full  and  final  revelation  of  God. 
The  Logos  was  in  the  beginning  with  God  and  was  God,  but  had  now 
become  incarnate  in  Jesus  Christ.  Let  me  prove  this  to  you,  he  says, 
as  it  were.  But  let  me  accomplish  this  end,  not  as  I  might  do  by  set- 
ting before  you  a  mere  collection  of  evidences  or  arguments,  which  have 
no  immediate  personal  connection  with  myself,  and  none  even  with  Him 
as  a  part  of  the  daily  life  which  He  led  among  men.  Let  me  do  it, 
rather,  by  giving  you  the  picture  of  the  living  man  as  He  walked 
with  His  contemporaries,  and  especially  with  his  earliest  followers,  along 
the  pathway  of  His  earthly  career.  In  this  way  I  can  place  Him  before 
you  as  He  was,  and  you  can  see  the  evidences  as  they  were  given  by  Him- 
self. You  can  live  with  Him,  as  it  were,  and  hear  Him  speak  of  the 
heavenly  things.  To  these  readers  the  term  Logos  may  have  come  from 
the  Jewish-Alexandrian  philosophy,  while  to  him  it  came  directly  from 
the  Old  Testament.  To  him  it  may  have  had  a  different  meaning,  in 
some  degree,  from  that  which  it  had  for  them,  and  a  far  deeper  one.  But 
it  served,  nevertheless,  as  a  connecting-link  between  his  answer  and  their 
questionings,  and  having  made  it  useful  to  this  end,  he  leads  them  away 
from  fruitless  discussion  to  the  contemplation  of  Jesus  as  he  had  known 
Him.  At  the  same  time,  his  book  would  have  its  adaptation  to  every 
chance  reader,  in  whose  way  it  might  fall,  and  would  call  his  mind,  if 
possible,  through  the  testimony  and  the  experience  to  the  life. 

If  we  explain  the  Gospel  in  this  way,  everything  becomes  plain,  and  the 
book  comes  forth,  as  its  rich,  deep  thoughts  would  indicate,  from  the 
depths  of  a  meditative  soul  in  personal  union  with  Christ  when  He  was 
on  earth.  But  if  we  locate  the  writer  in  the  second  century,  what  must 
we  believe  ?  We  must  believe  that  out  of  a  few  notes  made  by  the  Apos- 
tle John,  or,  apart  from  anything  of  his,  out  of  the  Synoptic  narratives, 


THE   INTERNAL   EVIDENCE.  505 

the  writer  manufactured  a  history  of  Jesus'  life  which  he  represented  as 
moving  along  with  his  disciples  and  gradually  influencing  their  charac- 
ters and  their  living.  Yes,  even  more  than  this ;  that  he  did  this  so  suc- 
cessfully, so  far  as  relates  to  the  person  of  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved, 
that  the  great  majority  of  the  Church  in  all  ages  have  believed  the  author 
to  be  that  disciple.  To  accomplish  such  a  result,  a  century  after  the  his- 
tory was  ended,  would  require  an  imagination  of  a  high  order,  a  power 
of  transferring  oneself  to  the  life  of  a  remote  past  period  such  as  even 
men  of  genius  rarely  have.  Such  a  power  belongs  only  to  the  higher  order 
of  poets  or  writers  of  fiction.  But  this  author,  whoever  he  may  have 
been,  did  not  possess  this  faculty.  We  may  not  know  his  name,  but  the 
peculiar  characteristics  of  his  mind  and  soul  are  exhibited  so  clearly  in 
his  writings,  that  he  stands  before  us  with  distinctness  and  with  individ- 
uality. He  was  no  writer  of  fiction  or  poet  of  the  order  mentioned.  He 
was  a  man  who,  beyond  any  other  in  the  New  Testament  history,  or, 
indeed,  almost  any  other  of  any  age,  dwelt  within  himself,  in  the  region 
of  contemplation, and  that  not  the  contemplation  of  intellectual  themes, 
but  of  the  growth  of  the  soul's  life.  Introvertive,  meditating  upon  him- 
self and  his  own  character,  thinking  deep  thoughts  only  as  they  took  hold 
upon  the  relation  of  his  soul  to  God  and  brought  the  inward  man  into 
the  light,  picturing  to  himself  the  glory  of  heaven  only  as  that  likeness  to 
God  which  should  come  from  seeing  Him  as  He  is — such  a  man  would 
be  the  last  of  all  to  transfer  his  experience  to  the  life  of  another,  or  either 
to  desire  or  be  able  to  picture  another  as  himself.  To  such  a  man,  the 
inward  life  is  too  precious  and  too  personal  to  be  represented  as  if  it 
were  not  his  own.  It  is  too  intensely  individual  to  pass  beyond  the  one 
to  whom  it  belongs  as  the  central  thing  of  his  being. 

We  may  add,  that  it  would  have  been  no  easy  thing  for  any  man,  as 
near  even  to  the  life  of  Jesus  as  Paul  or  Apollos  were — and  surely  not  for 
one  living  in  the  second  century — to  represent  his  own  Christian  life  as  if 
it  had  grown  up  in  a  personal  association  with  Him  when  He  was  on 
earth.  The  sorry  failures  of  all  attempts,  in  our  day  even,  to  give  a  life- 
like picture  of  those  apostolic  scenes  may  show  us  how  hard  a  task  it 
must  have  always  been  to  do  such  a  work  successfully.  But,  in  some 
respects,  it  must  have  been  more  difficult  for  the  early  Christians  to  do  it, 
for  the  dividing  line  between  the  apostles  and  themselves,  as  those  who 
had  seen  the  Lord  and  those  who  had  not,  was  a  broad  one  and  one  of 
which  they  never  lost  sight.  But  here  is  a  success  which  has  deceived  the 
ages,  and  a  success  accomplished  by  a  man  who  had  great  thoughts,  yet 


506  INTRODUCTORY  SUGGESTIONS  ON 

not  at  all  the  genius  of  fiction — who  lived  in  his  friendship  with  the  Lord, 
but  could  not  have  pictured  it  to  himself  or  others  as  growing  up  under 
different  conditions  from  those  which  actually  belonged  to  it. 

We  venture,  also,  to  maintain  that  the  motive  of  a  speculative  or  theolog- 
ical character,  which  has  led  some  to  believe  that  the  story  is  told  by  the 
author  as  if  he  were  the  apostle  when  he  was  not,  did  not  exist.  The  evi- 
dences as  to  the  mental  character  of  the  writer  of  the  Gospel,  which  we 
find  in  his  works,  are  not  that  he  was  a  speculative  philosopher,  that  he 
dwelt  upon  propositions  or  truths  for  their  own  sake,  that  he  was  ready 
to  construct  a  theological  system  for  the  purpose  of  teaching  it,  or  to 
introduce  new  theories  into  the  Church.  His  thoughts  relate  only  to 
character  and  life.  He  cares  nothing  for  them  except  as  they  enrich  the 
soul.  He  even  writes  his  story  of  Jesus  for  the  purpose  of  proving  His 
Divine  nature  and  work,  only,  because  he  is  assured  that  belief  in  the 
truth  will  bring  life  eternal  to  the  believer.  And  these  thoughts  which 
grow  into  character  are,  first  of  all,  interesting  to  him  for  the  reason  that 
they  take  hold  of  and  beautify  his  own  character. 

If  we  examine  the  First  Epistle  in  connection  with  the  Gospel,  we  find 
what  these  thoughts  were,  and  where  the  writer  first  received  them  into 
his  mind.  The  great  truth  is  that  God  is  light,  and  in  Him  is  no  darkness 
at  all.  This  absolute  and  perfect  spiritual  light,  is  what  the  human  soul, 
according  to  the  measure  of  its  capacity,  must  participate  in,  if  it  is  to 
have  its  highest  life.  The  life  of  the  soul  is  light.  Comp.  1  Ep.  i.  5,  Gosp. 
i.  4.  How  is  this  life  to  be  secured?  This  is  the  question  with  which  his 
mind  is  wholly  occupied.  How  shall  it  be  secured  by  himself  and  by  all 
other  men?  The  day  which  brought  him  into  communication  with  Jesus 
Christ  answered  the  question.  The  years  and  the  meditations  which  fol- 
lowed from  that  first  meeting  to  his  latest  age,  only  made  the  answer 
more  full  and  more  satisfying.  Thought,  therefore,  moves  along  this  line. 
The  relation  of  the  personal  Jesus,  full  of  grace  and  truth,  to  his  individ- 
ual-soul is  the  starting-point  of  all  thinking,  and  the  nature  of  Jesus,  His 
work,  and  everything  respecting  Him  centre,  in  their  all-absorbing  inter- 
est, around  this  relation.  Friendship  with  Jesus  was  the  atmosphere  in 
which  he  lived.  The  meditations  of  friendship  and  the  study,  in  experi- 
ence, of  its  power  to  develop  the  inward  man — not  the  speculations  of 
philosophy  or  theology — were  what  occupied  his  life.  Hence  we  find 
him,  when  he  comes  to  write  for  the  world,  telling  first,  in  the  Gospel,  the 
simple  story  of  what  Jesus  did  and  said,  and  afterwards,  in  the  Epistle, 
saying  at  the  outset,  "  That  which  we  have  heard,  seen,  handled  of  the 


THE  INTERNAL  EVIDENCE.  507 

Word  of  life,  which  was  with  the  Father  and  was  manifested  unto  us,  de- 
clare we  unto  you."  The  end  in  view,  in  the  latter  case,  is  also  the  same 
as  in  the  former :  "  that  you  (the  readers)  may  have  fellowship  with  us 
whose  fellowship  is  with  the  Father  and  with  his  Son  Jesus  Christ." 

No  writer  in  the  New  Testament  was  more  unfitted  by  the  peculiar 
characteristics  of  his  nature  to  find  interest  in  creating  a  history  for  the 
purpose  of  developing  an  idea.  No  class  of  thinking  men  in  any  age  turn 
with  less  readiness  to  mere  speculations  for  their  own  sake  than  those 
who,  like  this  writer,  are  ever  studying  with  intense  delight  the  progress  of 
their  own  souls  in  true  living.  Let  us  try  to  imagine  a  speculative  philoso- 
pher, of  earlier  or  later  times,  coming  before  his  readers  with  a  manufac- 
tured history,  told  in  the  simple  style  of  the  Gospel,  and  then  saying:  That 
which  I  have  heard  and  seen  and  handled  I  declare  to  you,  that  you 
may  have  fellowship  with  me  in  God  and  Christ,  and  these  things  I  write 
that  my  joy  may  be  fulfilled.  The  inmost  nature  of  the  two  classes  of 
men  is  different.  The  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  was  not  a  philosopher 
of  the  schools,  nor  a  contemplative  mystic.  He  lived  in  the  experience 
and  recollections  of  a  personal  friendship  and  found  in  that  friendship  the 
eternal  life.  He  could  not  have  created  the  story  of  his  life  with  Jesus  by 
his  imagination,  if  he  would,  for  his  nature  was  such  that  it  must  rest  on 
reality.  The  deepest  souls,  of  his  peculiar  order,  as  we  have  already  said, 
do  not  and  cannot  picture  their  own  experience  as  that  of  another ;  much 
less,  if  possible,  can  they  make  a  fictitious  narrative  contradicting  the 
supremest  facts  of  their  personal  life,  for  the  purpose  of  impressively  pre- 
senting to  the  world  a  theological  idea. 

Among  the  personages  of  the  apostolic  history  who  live  and  move  be- 
fore us  on  the  pages  of  the  New  Testament,  the  writer  of  this  Gospel 
takes  his  place  as  truly  as  any  other.  Paul  and  Peter,  even,  do  not  stand 
forth  as  living  characters  more  clearly  than  he  does.  He  conies  forward, 
indeed,  as  if  in  his  bodily  presence,  in  several  of  the  narratives,  and  by 
reason  of  the  familiar  acquaintance  which  he  shows  with  the  details  of 
the  history  and  with  the  geography,  the  customs,  the  men  of  the  region 
which  he  describes.  But  with  far  greater  distinctness  even,  does  he  appear 
to  us  in  his  character  and  inward  personality.  The  testimony  of  thou- 
sands of  men  who  have  communed  with  him  in  spirit,  as  they  have  given 
themselves  up  to  the  contemplation  of  his  deep  thoughts,  bears  witness  as 
to  what  he  was,  and  their  testimony,  in  all  the  ages,  is  the  same.  The 
book  which  he  has  written  gives  evidence  with  regard  to  him  as  truly  and 
as  fully  as  the  Pauline  Epistles  do  for  their  author.    It  shows  as  plainly 


508  INTRODUCTORY  SUGGESTIONS  ON 

that  he  was  one  of  apostolic  company  who  attended  Jesus  in  the  years  of 
His  ministry,  as  the  writings  of  the  apostle  to  the  Gentiles  prove  that  he 
was  not. 

The  external  testimonies  for  the  authenticity  of  the  Gospel,  as  Godet  and 
many  other  writers  have  shown,  are  exceedingly  strong.  That  of  Irenreus, 
given  so  abundantly,  is  in  itself  sufficient,  for  he  knew  Polycarp,  who  had 
known  John.  But  we  are  persuaded  that  the  book  carries  ivithin  itself  its 
strongest  evidence.  And  this  evidence  is  inwoven  into  its  whole  texture, 
and  is  the  more  powerful  in  its  impressiveness  because  it  is  so  incidental 
and  undesigned.  We  have  given  a  few  suggestions  with  regard  to  it, 
which  may,  in  a  measure,  supplement  what  Godet  has  presented  in  his  ex- 
cellent introduction.  The  subject  might  be  set  forth  with  much  greater 
detail  and  with  more  of  completeness  in  the  plan  of  presentation.  But 
in  the  limited  space  allowed  us,  we  have  desired  only  to  move  along  one 
line  of  thought,  and  have  been  able,  even  in  this  line,  to  do  no  more  than 
indicate  what  may  open  a  wide  held  of  study  for  the  thoughtful  reader  of 
this  Gospel.  Before  concluding  these  introductory  remarks  upon  the 
book,  however,  we  will  call  attention  to  two  or  three  scenes  in  the  story 
related  by  the  author,  in  which  the  reality  of  a  past  experience  is  what 
gives  them  all  their  life  and  power.  The  scene  recorded  in  i.  35  ff.  is  one 
of  these.  Of  this  we  have  already  spoken.  But  it  is  by  no  means  the  only 
one.  In  the  narrative  of  the  last  evening  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  the  author 
represents  Him-as  comforting  the  hearts  of  the  disciples  in  view  of  His 
approaching  death  by  the  promise  of  a  future  reunion  in  heaven.  He 
begins  by  assuring  them  that  there  are  many  mansions  in  His  Father's 
house,  and  adds  the  declaration  that  He  is  going  to  prepare  a  place  for 
them  there.  But  between  the  two  statements  there  is  a  word  inserted, 
which  has  been  to  many  difficult  of  explanation :  "  If  it  were  not  so,  I 
would  have  told  you."  Whence  does  the  force  of  this  expression  come? 
Where  does  it  get  its  significance?  Surely,  from  the  past  life  with  the 
disciples,  and  from  that  alone.  As  spoken  by  a  stranger,  or  by  another  than 
a  friend,  the  words  would  have  had  little  or  no  meaning.  But  as  taking 
hold  upon  every  day  of  those  three  years  of  their  life  together,  as  recall- 
ing all  that  He  had  been  to  them  and  done  for  them,  as  opening  the 
depths  of  His  love  and  friendship  so  wonderfully  revealed  to  their  inmost 
experience,  they  became  the  strongest  testimony  to  the  truth  of  what  He 
said  at  the  parting  hour.  Your  experience  in  the  past  may  bear  witness 
that  I  would  not  deceive  you — may  prove  to  you  that  there  is  a  place  for  you 
in  the  Father's  house,  for,  if  it  were  not  so,  I  would  not  have  failed  to  tell 


THE  INTERNAL   EVIDENCE.  509 

you.  But  they  are  of  that  peculiar  character  which  makes  it  improbable, 
almost  to  the  extent  of  impossibility,  that  a  writer  of  another  generation 
would  have  dreamed  of  inserting  them.  To  the  soul  of  the  beloved  disci- 
ple they  would  be  a  precious  memory  for  a  lifetime,  a  word  of  love  to  be 
often  recalled  with  tenderest  recollection.  They  speak  of  living  friendship 
and  appeal  to  a  past.  But  the  one  to  whom  they  spoke  thus  must  have 
known  the  past  and  have  shared  in  the  living  friendship.  Stories  created 
for  the  presentation  of  a  theological  idea  do  not  move  in  the  sphere  of  such 
expressions.  The  Christian  author  of  the  third  or  fourth  generation  of 
believers  might,  perhaps,  have  put  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus  the  promise 
that  He  would  prepare  a  place  for  His  followers,  or  the  assurance  that 
there  was  room  for  them  in  Heaven,  but  this  little  sentence  would  never 
have  found  place  in  his  thought  or  his  narrative.  It  belongs  to  the  even- 
ing on  which  it  is  said  to  have  been  uttered  and  to  the  experience  of  one 
who  heard  it  from  the  Lord  Himself.  It  testifies  of  the  authorship  of  the 
book  by  an  ear-witness. 

Or  again,  in  the  same  scene  of  the  last  evening,  who  but  one  who  was 
present  and  witnessed  the  changing  thoughts  of  successive  moments 
could  have  recorded  those  words  of  xvi.  5,  6  :  "  But  now  I  go  unto  him  that 
sent  me  ;  and  none  of  you  asketh  me  whither  goest  thou,"  after  having 
related  in  the  earlier  part  of  the  conversation,  that  one  of  the  disciples 
had  suggested  this  very  question,  xiv.  5  ?  To  one,  however,  who  remem- 
bered the  scene  as  himself  participating  in  it,  these  words  had  a  living 
freshness  and  recalled  the  grief  and  disappointment  of  their  hopes,  which 
so  filled  the  hearts  of  all  that  they  thought  only  of  their  own  future,  and 
not  of  the  blessedness  which  should  come  to  Jesus.  How  completely 
does  this  place  us  in  the  midst  of  the  apostolic  company  and  tell  us  of 
the  living  experience  of  the  hour.  It  is  not  the  effort  of  the  advocate  of 
some  intellectual  conception  or  theory  that  we  find  here,  but  the  thought 
of  a  loving  friend  who  always  bore  with  him,  even  to  his  latest  life,  what 
he  had  felt  and  what  Jesus  had  said  in  one  of  the  supreme  moments  of 
the  past. 

Or,  if  we  look  at  the  story  of  the  morning  of  the  resurrection,  the 
striking  way  in  which  the  faith  of  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved  is 
represented  as  confirmed  by  what  he  saw  in  the  tomb,  while  that  of 
Peter  is  not  spoken  of,  points  to  such  knowledge  of  the  inner  history  of 
the  former  as  indicates  that  the  writer  was  referring  to  himself.  The' 
same  is  true  of  the  life-like  picture  presented  before  us  in  the  twenty- 
first  chapter.    Not  only  is  it  wholly  improbable  that  a  writer,  who  had 


510  INTRODUCTORY  SUGGESTIONS  ON 

never  stood  at  the  standpoint  of  the  event  related,  and  who  was  writing 
after  the  death  of  the  beloved  disciple,  would  have  taken  this  method  of 
correcting  the  error  alluded  to ;  but  the  story,  by  its  inimitable  natural- 
ness as  answering  to  the  feeling  of  the  two  participants  in  the  last  part  of 
the  scene  with  Jesus,  carries  us  into  the  heart  of  the  writer  as  he  remem- 
bers all  that  happened. 

Or,  finally — to  refer  only  to  one  more  passage — how  are  we  to  account 
for  the  touching  incident  in  xix.  25-27,  where  Jesus  entrusts  his  mother 
to  the  care  of  the  beloved  disciple  ?  She  had  children  of  her  own  who 
could  care  for  her,  or,  if  not  children,  nephews  who  were  to  her  as  if 
sons.  Why  does  not  Jesus  commit  her  to  their  care?  The  fact  that 
they  were  unbelievers  at  the  time  will  not  explain  this  peculiar  act,  for 
they  were  to  become  believers  within  a  few  days  after  the  death  of  Jesus 
(comp.  Acts  i.  14),  and  He  must  have  foreseen  this.  The  only  answer  to 
the  question  which  the  verses  suggest  is  that,  at  the  final  hour,  Jesus  rose 
above  the  power  of  earthly  relationships,  and,  in  view  of  His  separation 
from  them  both,  joined  the  two  friends,  to  whom  He  was  most  closely 
bound  in  affection,  as  son  and  mother.  But,  if  this  was  the  reason  of 
His  giving  the  one  of  the  two  to  the  other,  the  act  bears  within  itself  the 
result  of  a  long-continued  and  real  life  of  the  soul  in  all  the  three  as 
related  to  one  another.  It  is  wholly  dependent  on  a  living  experience. 
And  whose  experience  is  to  be  found  in  the  unnamed  sharer  in  this 
scene  ?  Is  it  the  originator  of  a  system,  the  defender  of  an  idea,  the 
meditative  philosopher,  who  brings  into  a  fictitious  narrative  a  little 
incident  like  this,  which  could  have  no  interest  as  compared  with  many 
things  that  might  have  directly  emphasized  his  doctrine  of  the  Logos? 
Is  it  not,  on  the  other  hand,  the  man  who,  in  the  later  years  of  his  life, 
goes  over  once  more  the  facts  of  his  own  association  with  his  Master  and 
finds  in  them  all  the  power  of  a  holy  friendship  for  his  own  soul? 

All  these  things — if  any  judgment  of  what  is  true  can  be  formed  in  the 
case- of  any  man's  utterance(  or  writing — testify  of  reality.  They  depend 
on  the  reality  Of  that  which  is  related  for  their  significance.  And  the 
only  satisfactory  explanation  of  their  appearance  in  the  book  is  that  the 
author  was  bearing  witness  of  what  he  had  seen  and  heard.  The  suppo- 
sition that  such  stories  were  told  for  the  purpose  of  maintaining  a  theory 
or  of  glorifying  one  of  the  apostles  at  the  expense  of  another  is  little  less 
than  absurd.  They  are  not  fitted  in  any  considerable  measure  for  either 
purpose.  They  take  hold  upon  the  tenderest  feelings  of  the  heart,  and 
are  foreign  to  the  sphere  of  rivalry  or  discussion.    And  the  fact  that 


THE   INTERNAL   EVIDENCE.  511 

their  full  meaning  is  to  be  sought  and  found  only  beneath  the  surface 
adds  to  the  evidence  that  the  writer  and  the  apostle  of  whom  he  wrote 
were  one  and  the  same  person. 

It  is  often  said  that  the  student  of  the  Bible  must  be  in  sympathy  with 
it,  if  he  would  reach  the  deepest  understanding  of  what  it  is  and  what  it 
teaches.  This  is  no  doubt  true,  for  the  unsympathetic  mind  never  reaches 
the  perfect  light  in  any  line  of  study.  But,  in  a  peculiar  sense,  it  is  neces- 
sary for  one  who  comes  to  the  investigation  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  that  he 
should  have  some  comprehension  of  the  inner  life  of  a  Christian  believer 
who  grows  into  the  likeness  of  Christ  by  personal  communion  with  Him 
— who  abides  within  the  region  of  his  own  spirit,  and  moves  upward  and 
onward  in  the  sphere  of  a  divine  friendship.  It  is  not  enough  to  dissect 
the  sentences,  or  consider  the  theological  doctrine,  or  attempt  to  fit  the 
narrative  to  an  idea,  or  trace  the  possible  development  of  thought  under 
certain  influences  on  the  foundation  of  the  Synoptic  story.  The  man  him- 
self who  wrote  the  book  must  be  understood,  for  he  is,  after  all,  in  his  own 
inner  life,  the  greatest  factor  in  it.  The  student  of  his  writings  must  see 
him  himself.  He  must  be  in  sympathy  with  him,  if  he  would  be  prepared 
to  appreciate  the  evidence  which  he  has  furnished  as  to  his  personality. 
It  is  the  want  of  this  sympathy,  arising  from  the  want  of  that  peculiar 
belief  which  gave  him  his  truest  life,  that  has  placed  many  writers  on  his 
Gospel  quite  outside  of  its  central  and  inmost  part.  They  have  dissected 
the  book,  but  they  have  not  known  the  man. 

But  when  we  know  the  man,  we  comprehend  the  book — and  we  recog- 
nize in  the  book  not  a  poem  or  a  work  of  fiction ;  the  author  did  not  live 
in  the  region  of  the  imagination  : — not  the  writing  of  one  who  created  a 
doctrine  or  system  for  himself  by  means  of  his  own  reflection ;  his  musings 
were  of  a  far  different  order  from  this  : — not  the  effort  of  a  man  who  tries 
to  save  Christianity  from  the  influence  of  Judaism,  or  to  reconcile  parties 
and  unify  the  Church,  or  to  elevate  or  depreciate  one  or  another  of  the 
apostolic  company;  he  is  neither  a  partisan  nor  a  professed  peacemaker  : — 
but  the  simple  story  of  what  a  man  of  the  richest  inward  life,  who  had 
lived  with  Jesus,  learned  of  His  nature  and  His  wonderful  spiritual  power, 
both  in  his  association  with  Him  and  in  the  meditations  of  the  years  that 
followed. 

The  Christian  system  is  not  dependent  on  the  genuineness  of  the  fourth 
Gospel,  so  that,  if  the  latter  could  be  disproved,  the  former  would  fail. 
But  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  author  of  this  Gospel  penetrated  in  hia 
thought  into  the  centre  of  the  Christian  system,  as  it  has  been  understood 


512  INTRODUCTORY   SUGGESTIONS. 

by  the  Church.  The  question  of  the  authorship  becomes,  therefore,  one 
of  gravest  importance.  If  the  author  was  that  most  intimate  disciple  of 
Jesus  of  whom  the  book  speaks  so  frequently,  he  gained  his  conception 
of  Christ  and  the  new  faith  from  the  Lord  Himself,  and  he  could  not  be 
mistaken.  His  book  is  the  flower  and  consummation  of  the  apostolic 
thought.  It  is  in  the  truest  and  highest  sense  inspired  of  God.  The  at- 
tempt to  deny  the  system  is  a  hopeless  one,  so  soon  as  this  Gospel  is  estab- 
lished on  a  firm  foundation.  In  view  of  this  fact,  it  may  well  seem 
divinely  ordered  that  the  book  should  stand  in  the  world  as  it  has  ever 
done,  bearing  within  itself  its  own  evidence.  The  writer  of  it,  in  address- 
ing the  readers  for  whom  his  first  Epistle  was  intended,  says  that  he  writes 
that  which  he  has  seen  and  heard,  in  order  that  they  may  have  fellow- 
ship, as  he  himself  has,  with  the  Father  and  with  his  Son  Jesus  Christ. 
It  is  a  wonderful  fact  in  the  history  of  the  centuries  which  have  passed 
since  he  wrote,  that  those  who  have  been  persuaded  by  his  story  to  be- 
lieve and  who  have  been  conscious,  as  the  result  of  their  faith,  that  they 
had  fellowship  with  God,  have  had  an  abiding  confidence  that  he  told  of 
what  he  had  heard  and  seen,  and  that  it  is  those  who  have  rejected  the 
doctrine  and  the  peculiar  life,  who  have  questioned  the  reality  of  the 
author's  experience  as  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved.  The  past  may 
give  us  confidence  in  the  future ;  and  we  may  safely  predict  that,  until 
the  inner  life  of  the  author  ceases  to  bear  this  witness,  he  and  his  Gos- 
pel will  be  among  the  unshaken  pillars  of  the  Church. 


ADDITIONAL  NOTES  BY  THE  AMERICAN  EDITOR. 


Chapter  I. 

The  leading  thoughts  respecting  the  Logos  which  are  presented  in  the 
Prologue  are  those  of  ver.  1  and  ver.  14.  The  former  verse  sets  forth  what 
He  was  antecedent  to  the  time  of  His  incarnation,  and  in  the  beginning ; 
the  latter  declares  that  He  became  flesh. 

A.  With  reference  to  the  first  verse  the  following  points  may  be 
noticed : — 1.  The  object  of  the  whole  Prologue  being  to  make  certain 
declarations  respecting  the  Logos,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  6  16yog  is 
the  subject  in  all  the  three  clauses  of  which  the  verse  is  composed — in 
the  third,  no  less  than  in  the  other  two.  This  is  indicated  also  by  the 
parallelism,  with  slight  variation,  which  seems  to  belong  to  the  rhetorical 
style  of  this  author.  The  clauses  are  parallel,  but  the  predicate  stands 
first  in  two  of  them,  while  in  the  intermediate  one  the  subject  has  its 
natural  position.  2.  In  the  third  clause,  the  predicate  #e<5f,  being  differ- 
ent from  that  in  the  second,  b  #f<5f,  must  be  intended  to  suggest  to  the 
reader  a  different  idea.  This  different  idea,  however,  being  expressed  by 
the  same  substantive,  cannot  reasonably  be  held  to  be  of  an  entirely  dif- 
ferent order.  The  word  without  the  article  must  move  in  the  same  sphere 
with  that  which  has  it.  The  Logos,  according  to  the  statement  of  the 
writer,  must  be  God  in  a  similar  sense  to  that  in  which  the  one  with 
whom  He  is  is  God,  and  yet  not  in  precisely  the  same  sense.  So  far  as 
the  book  may  properly  be  regarded  as  an  unfolding,  in  any  degree,  of  the 
thoughts  of  the  Prologue,  we  may  naturally  expect  to  find  in  the  chap- 
ters which  follow,  the  answer  to  the  question  thus  presented  :  in  what 
sense  are  the  words  to  be  understood,  when  it  is  said  that  the  Logos  is 
tffrff  and  not  6  &e6g?  3.  In  the  verses  (2-4),  which  are  immediately  con- 
nected with  ver.  1,  the  last  of  the  three  clauses  of  that  verse  does  not 
appear,  but  the  other  two  are  repeated.  The  explanation  of  this  fact  is, 
doubtless,  to  be  found  in  the  purpose  of  these  verses.  The  author  is 
moving,  in  these  verses,  along  the  line  of  revelation.  This  line  is  presented 
in  the  three  terms:  creation,  life  and  light.  The  Logos  was  the  instru- 
mental agent  through  whom  all  created  things  were  brought  into  being. 
To  that  portion  of  creation  which  is  animate  or  rational,  as  contrasted 
with  the  inanimate  or  irrational  part,  He  is  the  life-principle,  which 
gives  it  life.  To  that  part  which  has  the  higher  element,  the  Trvevfia,  and 
thus  has  the  capacity  for  the  action  of  the  life-principle  in  the  higher  re- 
gion, He  is  the  light.  What  the  idea  of  light  is  may  best  be  understood 
by  the  use  of  the  word  in  1  John  i.  5,  where  it  is  said  that  God  is  light,  and 
33  513 


514  ADDITIONAL   NOTES   BY   TIIE   AMERICAN   EDITOR. 

it  is  added,  with  the  same  contrast  of  <pug  and  caoTia  which  we  have  here, 
that  in  Him  is  no  darkness  at  all.  The  divine  Spiritual  illumination  for 
man  comes  in  and  through  the  Logos.  4.  As  the.  world  of  beings  capable 
of  receiving  spiritual  light  failed,  by  reason  of  their  moral  darkness,  to 
see  and  take  to  themselves  the  enlightening  revelation,  which  the  Logos 
was  ever  making  to  all  even  from  the  hour  of  creation,  some  clearer  mode 
of  making  the  light  known  to  them  was  necessary,  and  for  this  purpose 
the  Logos  became  incarnate  (ver.  14).  5.  The  person  in  whom  He  be- 
came incarnate  is  Jesus  Christ,  ver.  17. — Such  is  the  development  of  the 
thought  connected  with  the  Logos  as  the  revealer  of  God.  The  Logos  was 
in  the  beginning  with  God.  Thus  He  is  the  one  by  means  of  whom  God 
gives  the  true  light  to  men.  That  they  may  have  it  as  fully  as  is  needful 
in  order  to  their  possessing  it  in  the  soul's  life,  He  enters  into  a  human 
mode  of  existence  and  appears  in  Jesus.  The  first  and  second  clauses  of 
ver.  1,  repeated  in  ver.  2,  are  the  starting-point  of  this  development,  and 
are  all  that  are  essential  to  its  beginning.  6.  It  cannot  be  doubted,  how- 
ever, that  the  statement  of  the  third  clause,  which  is  added  to  the  other 
two,  and  which  must  have  a  deeper  meaning  than  the  others  because  it 
declares  xvhat  the  Logos  was,  while  they  only,  as  it  were,  tell  where  and 
when  He  was,  is  intended  by  the  writer  to  hold  even  a  more  prominent 
place  than  they.  They  are  repeated,  and  the  thought  for  which  they  open 
the  way  is  unfolded,  because  the  discussions  and  questionings  which  occa- 
sioned the  writing  of  the  book  required  the  idea  of  revealing  God  to  be 
presented.  But  that  this  revelation  of  which  the  book  is  to  speak  is  and 
must  be  the  true  one,  the  only  true  one,  is  a  point  of  greatest  importance 
to  the  end  which  the  author  has  in  view.  For  thus  only  can  it  exclude 
every  other  and  become  the  undoubted  answer  to  the  question  which  all 
were  raising.  To  the  completeness  of  His  power  to  reveal,  He  must  be, 
not  only  npbg  tov  deov,  but  0eof.  Since  He  is  6e6g,  He  must,  in  some  sense, 
become  avdpunoq  in  order  that  the  revelation  may  be  perfectly  appre- 
hended by  men.  He  must  be  the  debg  avdpuTrog.  In  this  view  of  the  au- 
thor's thought,  the  third  clause  of  ver.  1  unites  itself  with  the  suggestion 
of  ver.  14,  and  then  these  two  leading  ideas  pass  on  to  ver.  17  ;  and,  join- 
ing that  verse  with  themselves,  they  find  their  full  expression  in  the 
words  :  Jesus  Christ  is  the  6ebq-avdpunog.  Hence  it  is,  as  we  may  believe, 
that  the  Prologue  closes  with  the  last  statement  of  the  18th  verse :  The 
only-begotten  Son  (or — if  that  be  the  true  reading — God  only  begotten) 
who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  He  hath  declared  Him.  7.  While, 
therefore,  in  one  view  of  the  Prologue  and  the  whole  Gospel,  this  final 
proposition  of  ver.  1  may  hold  only  a  secondary  place  in  the  plan,  or  even, 
perhaps,  be  unessential  to  it,  in  another  and  a  most  important  sense,  these 
words  are  the  primary  words  of  the  entire  book,  to  which  everything  else 
is  subordinate.  That  he  may  prove  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God,  and  thus 
that  that  life  which  is  the  living  of  the  human  soul  in  the  light  of  God, 
having  in  it  no  darkness  at  all,  may  be  realized  by  every  reader  through 
faith  in  Him,  is  the  object  and  purpose  of  his  writing  his  story  of  Jesus. 
8.  It  is  on  this  third  clause,  not  on  the  first  two  only,  that  the  expressions 


CHAPTER.    I.  515 

in  the  Gospel  which  have  the  deepest  meaning  rest.  As  being  6e6c  and  in 
the  bosom  of  the  Father,  He  has  life  in  Himself,  even  as  the  Father  has 
life  in  Himself;  He  is  the  living  bread  and  the  life-giving  bread;  He  and 
His  Father  are  one ;  to  know  Him  is  to  know  God  and  to  have  the  eter- 
nal life  of  the  soul.  This  deepest  meaning  must  be  gathered  from  all  the 
words  of  the  book  which  have  any  teaching  in  them  with  reference  to  it, 
and  they  must  all  be  centered  in  this  word  dedg,  if  we  are  in  any  true  sense 
to  comprehend  its  significance. 

B.  With  respect  to  ver.  14,  it  may  be  said  :  1.  That  the  word  cap%  must 
be  interpreted  in  connection,  not  only  with  its  use  in  the  writings  of  this 
author,  and,  as  would  also  seem  probable,  with  that  of  the  other  authors 
of  the  New  Testament,  but  with  the  words  or  clauses  in  the  context  which 
evidently  belong  in  the  same  circle  of  thought.  The  Logos,  as  He 
became  flesh,  is  said  to  have  tabernacled  among  us;  to  have  been  beheld 
by  the  writer  and  others ;  to  have  imparted  from  His  own  fullness  that 
grace  which  came  through  Jesus  Christ;  apparently,  in  some  true  con- 
ception of  the  words,  to  have  become  Jesus  Christ  (see  ver.  17  in  its  rela- 
tion to  ver.  14  and  ver.  16,  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  ver.  18  on  the  other). 
Zfipf  must,  therefore,  in  some  sense,  be  the  equivalent  of  hvdpunog ;  and,  as 
in  the  case  of  6e6c  of  ver.  1,  already  alluded  to,  every  indication  which  the 
book  presents  before  us  points  to  the  end  that  we  should  make  our 
attempt  to  determine  in  what  sense  it  is  thus  equivalent,  by  means  of  the 
representation  given  in  subsequent  chapters  respecting  Jesus. — The  term 
Logos  is  laid  aside  by  the  author  immediately  at  the  close  of  the  Prologue, 
but  we  cannot  fail  to  see  that  he  never  loses  sight  of  the  two  statements 
as  to  what  the  Logos  was  and  became.  Jesus — the  friend  and  master  of 
whom  he  writes — is  not  merely  a  messenger  of  God  to  the  world  to  bring 
to  it  a  revelation,  but  he  is  the  one  in  whom  the  Logos,  who  was  6e6g,  has 
become  dvdpuvroc,  the  one  who  is  able  perfectly  to  reveal  because  of  the 
0eof  side  or  relation  of  His  being,  and  to  make  His  revelation  under- 
stood by  those  around  Him  because  of  the  hvQpunoq  side  or  relation. 
Thus,  and  thus  only,  is  He  the  true  light  of  the  world,  bringing  it  into 
the  actual  experience  of  t"he  eternal  life. 

II. 

In  what  relation  to  the  leading  ideas  of  the  Prologue  do  the  statements 
respecting  grace  and  truth  stand  ?  The  answer  to  this  question  may  be 
sought  in  connection  with  ver.  17  and  the  contrast  with  the  law  which  is 
there  presented.  It  will  be  noticed  that  these  words  are  first  introduced 
at  the  end  of  ver.  14,  that  immediately  after  them  follows  the  second 
reference  to  the  testimony  of  John  the  Baptist,  and  that  then  they  are 
taken  up  again  as  if  for  further  explanation.  From  these  peculiar  char- 
acteristics of  the  passage,  it  would  seem  not  improbable  that  the  writer 
was  thinking  of  John  the  Baptist,  who,  as  the  last  of  the  prophets,  was 
also,  in  a  certain  sense,  the  one  who  brought  the  Old  Testament  legal 
system  to  its  end,  and,  by  turning  the  minds  of  the  people  to  the  right- 


516  ADDITIONAL   NOTES   BY   THE   AMERICAN   EDITOR. 

eousness  which  the  true  idea  of  the  law  required,  as  opposed  to  that 
which  its  Pharisaic  expounders  preached,  prepared  them  for  the  new 
system  which  was  about  to  be  introduced.  The  office  of  John  the  Baptist, 
as  he  proclaimed  the  advent  of  the  Messiah,  was  to  set  forth  the  necessity 
of  a  radical  change  of  character  (jieTavoia),  to  make  known  with  a  new 
power  and  impressiveness  the  vital  importance  of  being,  not  merely 
externally,  but  internally  right,  to  demand  on  behalf  of  the  kingdom  of 
God  a  new  life.  Repentance  and  reformation  were  the  burden  of  his 
message.  This  message,  as  we  may  say,  was  the  final  word  of  the  legal 
system,  as  it  passed  away  and  opened  the  door  for  the  faith-system.  The 
work  of  Jesus  was  to  make  this  reformation  and  new  life  possible, 
through  the  proclamation  of  the  fullness  of  Divine  truth,  the  revealing 
and  imparting  of  Divine  grace,  the  teaching  of  the  way  of  salvation 
through  forgiveness  and  that  righteousness  which  grows  up  in  the  par- 
doned soul  by  means  of  faith.  This  revelation  made  by  Jesus  Christ  was 
that  which  justifies  the  expression  used  in  ver.  18.  The  law,  even  in  its 
spiritual  application  to  the  inner  life,  might  be  revealed  through  a  man, 
like  Moses  or  John  the  Baptist.  But,  in  order  to  reveal  the  fullness  of 
God's  grace  and  truth,  the  appearance  of  a  greater  than  man  was  needed. 
To  this  end  one  must  have  seen  God,  in  the  highest  sense  of  that  word — 
as  no  man  has  ever  seen  Him.  The  only -begotten  Son  who  is  in  the  bosom 
of  the  Father,  the  Logos  who  was  with  God  in  the  beginning  and  was 
God,  and  who,  by  becoming  flesh,  brings  God  into  closest  communion 
with  men,  can  alone  make  this  revelation. 

III. 

Why  is  the  testimony  of  John  the  Baptist  referred  to  and  made  so 
prominent  in  the  Prologue  ?  We  find  it  alluded  to  not  only  after  the 
verse  (14)  in  which  the  incarnation  is  set  forth,  but  even  in  ver.  5  f.  imme- 
diately following  the  statements  respecting  the  Logos  in  His  pre-existent 
state.  The  distinct  presentation  of  its  contents,  however,  is  evidently 
deferred  until  the  beginning  of  the  historical  introduction  (ver.  19  ff.). 
The  true  explanation  of  this  peculiar  fact  may,  not  improbably,  be  sug- 
gested by  the  plan  of  the  book,  as  already  indicated  in  the  Introductory 
Remarks  on  the  internal  evidence  for  the  fourth  Gospel.  As  the  earliest 
disciples,  according  to  the  representation  of  the  book,  were  brought  to 
Jesus  by  the  testimony  of  John  the  Baptist,  and  the  object  of  the  book  is 
to  induce  the  readers  to  believe  on  the  same  grounds  on  which  these  dis- 
ciples believed,  it  was  natural  to  give  a  peculiar  prominence  to  John's 
testimony  at  the  beginning.  His  testimony  was,  in  a  certain  sense,  the 
foundation  of  all  that  followed,  and  hence  it  was  not  unsuitable — it  was, 
on  the  other  hand,  especially  impressive — to  place  it  in  connection  with 
the  great  fundamental  propositions  which  were  designed  to  arrest  the 
attention  of  those  for  whom  the  book  was  primarily  written.  That  the 
testimony  of  John  is  regarded  by  the  author  as  having  a  very  prominent 
place,  in  its  direct  bearing  upon  Jesus'  position  and  His  relation  to  God, 


CHAPTER  I.  517 

is  shown  by  the  reference  to  it  in  v.  33,  34.  In  the  author's  selection,  in 
that  chapter,  of  the  expressions  of  Jesus  which  set  forth  the  evidence  for 
His  claims  respecting  Himself,  he  chooses  for  his  narrative  this  one 
which  points  to  John.  And  though  Jesus  in  the  surrounding  words 
declares  that  He  has  a  higher  and  greater  testimony,  the  witness  of  John 
is  pressed  upon  the  thought  of  the  hearers. 

John's  testimony,  as  it  is  introduced  in  ver.  6  f.,  has  immediate  reference 
to  the  Logos  as  the  light,  and  thus  to  the  last  point  in  the  statements  of 
vv.  1-4.  We  may  believe,  however,  that,  though  not  directly,  yet  in  an 
indirect  way,  it  is  mentioned  in  just  this  place  in  order  to  carry  the  mind 
of  the  reader  back  to  the  first  great  propositions  of  ver.  1,  which  lie  at 
the  foundation  of  the  declaration  that  He  is  the  light. 

The  second  mention  of  John's  testimony  (after  ver.  14)  evidently  bears 
upon  that  verse.  As  it  includes  the  words  "  He  was  before  me,"  and  as 
these  words  are  even  the  ones  which  have  special  emphasis,  so  far  at  least 
as  relates  to  the  depth  of  the  meaning  of  the  sentence,  the  suggestion  just 
made  with  regard  to  the  previous  allusion,  in  ver.  6  ff.,  may  also  he  appli- 
cable here.  That  John  the  Baptist  comprehended  fully,  when  He  bore 
witness  to  Jesus,  all  that  John  the  Apostle  knew  of  His  Divine  nature,  we 
need  not  affirm.  But  that  the  witness  which  he  gave  was  a  significant 
element  in  the  proof  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Logos,  of  whom  what  is 
said  in  ver.  1  and  what  is  said  in  ver.  14  are  both  true,  we  alike  believe ; 
and  this  is  the  reason  for  including  what  John  had  testified  in  the 
Prologue. 

IV. 

The  reference  of  ver.  5,  by  reason  of  the  position  which  the  verse  holds — 
in  immediate  connection  with  vv.  1-4  and  before  the  allusion  to  the  testi- 
mony of  John — is  probably  to  the  general  and  permanent  illuminating 
power  of  the  light  before  the  incarnation.  The  Logos  was  with  God  and 
was  God ;  as  being  thus,  He  was  the  source  of  existence  to  the  creation, 
o/  life  to  creatures  endowed  with  life,  of  light  to  those  having  the  spirit- 
ual faculty.  So  far  vv.  1-4.  It  is  now  declared  that  this  light  permanently 
shines — from  the  beginning  ever  onward — but  that  the  darkness  did  not 
apprehend  it  in  the  earlier  times,  and  hence  the  necessity  is  suggested  of 
a  clearer  shining  or  revelation  (that  of  ver.  14).  The  past  tense  of  the 
verb  apprehended  seems  to  show  that  the  permanent  present  (which  would 
hold  true  of  all  time)  is  limited,  so  far  as  the  thought  of  this  verse  is  con- 
cerned, to  the  time  indicated  by  its  associate  verb.  We  may  hold,  there- 
fore, with  reasonable  confidence,  that  the  entire  passage  vv.  1-5  has  refer- 
ence to  the  Logos  before  His  incarnation,  as  vv.  14-16  relate  to  Him  as 
incarnate. 

But  what  shall  we  say  of  vv.  6-13?  The  intermediate  position  of  this 
passage  suggests  a  pointing  in  both  directions.  The  antecedent  probabili- 
ties, also,  as  to  what  the  writer  would  do  in  moving  from  ver.  5  to  ver.  14 
indicate  the  same  thing.  Finally,  the  proper  interpretation  of  different 
individual  verses  in  the  passage  may,  not  improbably,  confirm  us  in  the 


518  ADDITIONAL  NOTES  BY  THE  AMERICAN  EDITOR. 

conclusion.  Certainly,  ver.  11  must  be  taken  as  referring  to  the  period 
following  the  incarnation,  as  of  course  the  actual  witness-bearing  of  John 
must  be  located  in  this  period.  But  ver.  'J,  by  reason  of  the  emphatic  fjv 
and  also  by  reason  of  the  correspondence  in  the  permanent  present  ^uri- 
C,ei  of  this  verse  with  Qaivsi  of  ver.  5,  is  most  naturally  interpreted  as  pre- 
ceding the  kyivETo  of  ver.  14.  There  seems,  also,  to  be  a  natural  progress 
in  vv.  10-12,  of  such  a  nature  that,  within  the  sphere  of  the  general  pre- 
sent QuTi&i,  ver.  10  points  to  what  was  before  the  earthly  appearance  of  the 
Logos,  and  vv.  11,  12  point  to  what  followed  after  that  appearance.  John 
was  not  the  light,  but  He  came  to  testify  of  it.  The  true  light  was  always — 
in  the  early  ages,  bearing  witness  for  itself  and  shining  through  and  in  the 
creation,  physical  and  spiritual,  which  He  had  brought  into  existence; 
and  in  the  later  time,  through  His  manifestation  of  Himself  as  a  man  of 
the  Jewish  race.  In  both  periods  alike,  however,  the  darkness  in  which 
men  were,  because  of  evil,  prevented  His  being  known  and  received.  The 
presence  of  faith  was  needed  in  order  to  the  receptivity  of  the  soul  for  the 
light,  and  that  it  might  be  secured,  so  far  as  to  bring  men  to  look  to  Jesus 
as  the  revealer  of  God  in  the  highest  sense,  John  the  Baptist  had  appeared 
as  a  divinely-appointed  witness-bearer.  He  came,  that  all  might  believe 
through  him. 

V. 

Following  upon  this  intermediate  passage,  which  has  thus  a  progressive 
movement  from  the  pre-existent  to  the  incarnate  period,  the  second  great 
idea  of  the  entire  Prologue  is  distinctly  stated,  in  a  proposition  standing 
in  a  parallelism  with  those  in  ver.  1.  The  Word  became  flesh.  The  Logos 
entered  into  human  life.  The  light  which  had  previously  been  shining  in 
creation  and,  in  some  sense,  in  the  soul  of  every  man,  but  which  had  not 
been  apprehended,  is  now  revealed  in  the  clearest  possible  manner  by 
means  of  the  indwelling  of  the  Logos  in  a  man,  and  by  thus  bringing  God 
and  man  into  immediate  communication.  The  word  light  now  passes 
away,  but  it  gives  place  to  the  expressions  :  We  beheld  His  glory ;  full  of 
grace  and  truth.  The  idea  is  therefore  preserved,  though  the  mode  of  pre- 
senting it  changes.  The  change,  however,  is  in  sympathy  with  the  advance 
movement  of  the  thought.  The  revelation  of  the  Logos  is  now  so  perfect 
that  those  who  see  it  behold  His  glory.  The  darkness  has  passed,  and  He 
is  looked  upon  face  to  face.  And,  moreover,  the  revelation  is  of  grace 
and  truth — it  is  of  that  deepest  part  of  God's  nature  which  He  alone  who 
was  with  Him  in  the  beginning,  and  who  is  in  His  bosom  as  the  Son  with 
the  Father,  can  make  known.  The  light  thus  shines  from  the  beginning 
to  the  end,  only  more  clearly  at  last  than  at  first.  It  is  apprehended,  as  it 
shines,  by  the  souls  that  are  susceptible  to  it.  But  the  susceptibility  comes 
always  through  faith,  and  only  through  faith.  And  at  the  end  the  believers 
behold,  with  undimmed  vision,  the  glory  of  the  light.  To  this  more  glor- 
ious manifestation  John  the  Baptist  bears  testimony,  and,  pointing  to  the 
man  in  whom  the  Logos  is  revealed,  he  says  "  He  that  cometh  after  me  ia 
become  before  me,  for  He  was  before  me."    This  man  is  Jesus  Christ. 


CHAPTER  L  619 


VI. 


If  this  view  of  the  Prologue,  which  has  been  set  forth  in  the  preceding 
notes,  is  correct,  the  plan  of  the  author,  so  far  from  presenting  serious 
difficulties,  becomes  a  thoroughly  artistic  one — the  different  lines  of 
thought  being  most  carefully  interwoven  with  one  another ;  the  progress 
is  plain,  not  only  from  ver.  1  to  ver.  14,  but  from  ver.  1  to  ver.  4  and  ver. 
5,  from  ver.  6  to  ver.  13,  from  vv.  6-13  to  ver.  14,  and  from  ver.  14  to 
what  follows ;  and  finally  the  insertion  of  the  testimony  of  John  is  ac- 
counted for  in  a  way  which  most  naturally  and  satisfactorily  explains 
what  seems,  at  first  sight,  so  peculiar,  and  yet  in  a  way  which  shows  that 
it,  in  no  proper  sense,  breaks  the  line  of  development  of  the  ideas  of  light 
and  revelation. 

With  reference  to  the  individual  words  and  phrases  of  the  Prologue  the 
following  points  may  be  briefly  noticed  :  1.  The  idea  of  the  author  in  con- 
nection with  several  of  the  leading  words  is,  undoubtedly,  to  be  discovered 
from  the  main  portion  of  the  Gospel,  rather  than  from  the  introductory 
passage  alone.  We  may  infer,  however,  from  the  statements  of  the  Pro- 
logue itself,  and  from  the  origin  of  some  of  them,  or  their  use  elsewhere,  what 
their  significance  as  here  employed  is.  This  is  true  of  Myog,  h  apxy,  >"'/, 
<j>ug,  cap*,  etc.  2.  That  the  word  Myog  was  derived  from  the  Old  Testament 
— a  growth  of  the  idea  which  is  indicated  even  in  the  first  chapter  of  Gene- 
sis, and  which  is  developed  gradually,  as  Godet  shows,  in  the  later  times — 
is  very  widely  admitted  by  the  best  scholars.  That  it  was  suggested  to  the 
writer,  partly,  if  not  wholly,  by  its  use  in  the  discussions  of  the  time  and 
region  in  which  he  wrote,  seems  altogether  probable.  In  any  case,  the 
idea  fundamental  to  it  is  that  of  God  as  revealing  Himself.  The  Logos 
is  the  one  through  whom  (or  that  by  means  of  which),  God  is  revealed. 
Introduced,  as  it  is,  as  connected  with  the  discussions  alluded  to  and  for 
the  purpose  of  answering  the  question  which  was  the  central  one  in  them, 
it  is  natural  that  its  precise  meaning  should  be  left  for  the  reader  to  deter- 
mine from  the  propositions  of  which  it  is  made  the  subject,  and  from  the 
story  of  the  one  who  is  declared  to  be  the  Logos.  Of  these  propositions, 
the  first  two  which  appear  in  ver.  1,  affirm,  in  the  first  place,  that  the 
Logos  was  in  the  beginning — which,  from  the  relation  of  the  words  to  ver. 
3,  must,  at  least,  mean  that  He  existed  before  the  creation,  so  that  all  things 
created  have  their  origin  through  Him  ;  and  secondly,  that  He  was  with 
God — which  expression  is  further  explained  by  the  words  of  ver.  18  :  uho 
is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father.  They  show  that  the  revealing  one  existed 
antecedently  to  all  revelation  of  God  in  or  to  the  world,  and  that  what  He 
reveals  comes  from  the  inmost  heart  and  being  of  God.  But  the  third 
proposition  goes  beyond  these,  and  declares  that  He  was  6e6g.  Of  this  word 
it  may  be  said:  (a)  That  it  is  not  used  elsewhere  in  this  Gospel  or  in  the 
other  writings  of  this  author,  or  indeed  in  any  case  in  the  New  Testament, 
which  can  be  compared  with  this,  to  indicate  a  being  inferior  to  God ;  (ft)  That 
the  absence  of  the  article  does  not  indicate  any  such  inferiority,  because, 
in  the  first  place,  as  the  writer  desired  to  throw  especial  emphasis  on  this 


520  ADDITIONAL   NOTES   BY   THE  AMERICAN   EDITOR. 

predicate  by  placing  it  at  the  beginning  of  the  clause,  it  became  necessary 
to  omit  it  in  order  that  the  reader  might  not,  by  any  means,  misapprehend 
the  meaning,  and  in  the  second  place,  because  he  evidently  did  not  mean 
to  say  that  the  Logos  was  God  in  precisely  the  same  sense  in  which  that 
word  is  used  in  the  phrase  :  He  was  ivith  God.  He  was  not  the  one  with 
whom  He  was.  He  was  Oeog,  but  not,  as  the  term  is  here  used,  6  dcog.  If 
he  desired  to  express  what  in  theological  language  is  set  forth  in  such  a 
sentence  as  :  He  was  of  the  essence  of  God,  but  not  the  same  person  with 
the  Father,  and  if  he  desired  to  do  this  by  the  use  of  the  word  Oeog,  there 
would  seem  to  have  been  no  more  simple  or  better  way  of  formulating  his 
thought  than  by  saying  :  He  was  npbg  tod  deov,  and  was  deog.  But  it  is  the 
declarations  of  Jesus  Himself,  and  His  miraculous  signs  which  are  given 
in  the  following  chapters,*  which  are  intended  by  the  writer  to  determine 
the  full  significance  of  both  of  these  sentences.  3.  It  is  worthy  of  notice 
that,  while  the  word  Logos  disappears,  so  far  as  this  special  use  of  it  is 
concerned,  as  soon  as  the  Prologue  reaches  its  end,  the  words  fav  and  <t>og 
occur  many  times  in  the  subsequent  chapters.  These  words  also  draw 
closely  together  and  intermingle  with  one  another,  as  it  were,  in  their 
idea.  This  fact,  which  at  the  first  glance  seems  remarkable,  is  easy  of 
explanation  when  the  plan  and  purpose  of  the  book  are  understood.  To 
prove  that  Jesus  is  the  Logos,  in  the  mere  sense  that  He  answers  to  that 
which  was  a  matter  of  philosophical  inquiry  to  those  around  him,  is  a  thing 
of  little  consequence  to  the  writer.  But  that,  as  being  the  true  Logos,  He 
is  the  revealer  and  source  of  life  and  light,  is  the  message  which  He  has 
to  give  to  the  world,  the  evayyeliov  of  God.  The  satisfying  of  philosophical 
questioning  is  nothing  to  his  view,  we  may  say ;  the  bringing  of  the  human 
soul  into  union  with  God  is  everything.  The  close  connection  of  the  ideas 
of  life  and  light  is  also  very  natural,  for,  as  we  learn  from  the  author's 
first  epistle,  the  life  of  God  represents  itself  to  him  under  the  figure  of 
light — that  pure  and  perfect  light  which  has  no  intermingling  of  dark- 
ness— and  the  Cw?  or  fav  aluviog  of  man  is  the  participation  in  this  same 
light-life.  These  words,  accordingly,  are  not  merely  terms  of  philosophy 
and,  as  such,  appropriate  only  to  the  Prologue,  but  living  expressions  of 
experience.  The  life  is  that  of  the  soul  illuminated  by  pure  spiritual  light. 
Its  atmosphere  in  which  it  lives  is  light.  The  form  of  expression  in  the 
closing  sentences  of  the  Gospel  (xx.  30,  31)  is  thus  explained— where  the 
term-So?^  of  God  takes  the  place  of  Logos,  but  the  term  life  remains.  So 
also  in  the  First'  Epistle  i.  2,  we  have  the  words,  "And  the  life  was  mani- 
fested ...  the  eternal  life  which  was  with  the  Father."  The  word  life  in 
ver.  4,  occurring  as  it  does  in  the  progressive  development  of  thought 
from  ver.  1  to  ver.  5,  probably  has  a  more  general  meaning.  But  in  its 
use  afterwards  it  moves  into  the  sphere  of  the  spiritual,  which  is  the  only 
sphere  in  which  the  writer  would  have  his  own  and  his  readers'  minds 
abide.  4.  That  the  verb  Karelapev  of  ver.  5  means  apprrhcnded,  and  not 
ovrrcamr,  is  rendered  probable  by  the  following  considerations :  (a)  The 
former  meaning  lies  nearer  to  the  fundamental  signification  of  the  word 
to  lay  hold  of,  seize  upon.    The  thought  here  moves  in  the  spiritual  region, 


CHAPTER   I.  521 

and  to  lay  hold  of  spiritually  is  to  apprehend.  (6)  The  other  explanation 
of  the  word  would  indicate  that  the  darkness  is  here  looked  upon  as  a 
hostile  power  contending  with  the  light  for  the  mastery.  This  is  the  sense 
perhaps  in  xii.  35,  where  darkness  is  viewed  as  seizing  upon  the  man,  as 
a  power  hostile  to  him.  But  such  a  conception  does  not  seem  to  he  in  the 
writer's  mind  in  this  passage.  The  whole  movement  of  thought  is  in  the 
line  of  the  revelation  of  God,  which  needs  to  become  clearer  because  it  had 
not  before  been  laid  hold  of.  The  darkness  is  not  a  hostile  force  strug- 
gling with  the  light,  but  a  blinding  power  for  the  human  mind,  prevent- 
ing it  from  seeing  the  light.  This  verse  corresponds,  in  this  regard,  with 
ver.  10,  "  the  world  knew  him  not."  (c)  The  prevailing  sense  of  aaoua  as 
used  by  John  is  that  of  darkness  as  preventing  men  from  seeing  the  light, 
rather  than  that  of  a  hostile  power  contending  with  the  light ;  comp.  the 
First  Epistle  i.  6,  ii.  9,  11,  Gosp.  viii.  12.  Indeed,  the  use  of  the  word  in 
xii.  35a  seems  only  a  sort  of  passing  figure,  for  in  xii.  35b  the  common 
meaning  returns  :  "  he  that  walketh  in  the  darkness  knoweth  not  whither 
he  goeth."  5.  The  construction  of  ipx^vov  in  ver.  9  is  quite  uncertain. 
The  following  considerations  favor  the  connection  of  the  word  with  ndvra 
avdfiutrov : — (a)  The  position  which  it  has  in  the  sentence  points  to  its 
union  as  an  adjective- word  with  this  noun,  (b)  This  connection  gives  to 
this  verse  its  most  natural  meaning,  as  descriptive  of  the  permanent  work 
of  the  light  in  all  ages — the  following  verses  dividing  this  work  with  refer- 
ence to  the  time  before  and  the  time  after  the  incarnation,  (c)  The  em- 
phatic position  of  rjv  at  the  beginning  of  the  sentence  is  better  accounted 
for  if  it  is  an  independent  verb  ;  John  was  not  the  light,  yet  the  light  was. 
(d)  If  the  author's  intention  had  been  to  connect  the  particij)le  with  ?}v, 
the  form  of  the  sentence  would  probably  have  been  different.  If  his  idea 
was  was  coming  as  equivalent  to  came,  no  satisfactory  reason  can  be  given 
for  his  not  using  the  word  came.  If  it  was  vjas  about  to  come,  some  more 
clear  expression  of  the  idea  and  one  less  liable  to  misapprehension  would 
have  been  chosen.  In  either  case,  the  participle,  as  we  may  believe, 
would  have  been  placed  nearer  to  the  verb.  On  the  other  hand,  the  prin- 
cipal objection  to  connecting  the  participle  with  avdpunov  does  not  seem 
to  be  well-founded.  This  objection,  which  urges  that  the  expression  every 
man  coming  into  the  world  is  the  same  in  meaning  with  every  man,  and 
therefore  the  participle  is  superfluous,  might  be  of  force  as  bearing  against 
such  a  phrase  in  a  book  of  the  present  day.  But  such  modes  of  expres- 
sion belong  to  the  simple,  primitive  style  of  the  narrative  writers  of  the 
Bible  and  have  a  sort  of  emphasis  peculiar  to  that  style.  Moreover,  it  is 
not  necessary  to  regard  the  two  expressions  as  equivalent  to  each  other, 
for  the  participle  may  convey  the  idea :  as  he  was  coming,  or,  on  his  coming. 
6.  In  ver.  14,  the  words  full  of  grace  and  truth  are  to  be  connected  with  the 
subject  of  the  main  proposition,  the  Logos.  The  intervening  words,  and  we 
beheld  his  glory,  etc.,  are  thus  to  be  taken,  as  by  R.  V.  and  many  commen- 
tators, including  Godet,  as  a  parenthesis.  This  is  rendered  probable  not 
only  by  the  fact  that  the  adjective  nXr/pr/c  is  in  the  nominative  case,  but 
also  by  the  evident  immediate  connection  of  the  similar  words  in  vv.  16,. 


522  ADDITIONAL   NOTES   BY   THE   AMERICAN   EDITOR. 

17  with  the  Logos  and  Jesus  Christ.  The  15th  verse,  again,  is  with  rela- 
tion to  the  idea  expressed  by  these  words,  a  parenthetical  passage,  so  that 
the  thought  moves  directly  on  from  ver.  14  to  ver.  16.  In  relation  to  the 
matter  of  testimony,  however,  ver.  15  is  parallel  Avith  ver.  6f.,  and  has  a 
similar  emphasis  and  importance.  7.  There  is  apparently  somewhat  of 
the  same  carefulness  and  accuracy  of  expression,  within  the  limits  of 
popular  language,  in  the  use  of  caps,  which  we  have  noticed  in  the  use  of 
0e6f  as  distinguished  from  6  dedg  in  ver.  1.  The  writer  did  not  wish  to  say 
that  the  Logos  became  a  man  (avdpunog),  which  might  be  understood  as 
indicating  more  than  could  be  affirmed.  The  Logos  did  not  lay  aside  the 
essence,  but  the  p-opQq,  of  God.  He  did  not  pass  from  the  Divine  state  into 
that  of  a  mere  man.  But  He  entered  into  human  nature,  taking  upon 
Himself  the  popQi]  dovlov.  -  He  did  not,  on  the  other  hand,  merely  assume 
the  oxv,ua  avdpdnrov,  but  He  became  flesh,  kyevero  aap^.  Precisely  what  this 
involved  is  suggested  by  the  peculiar  expression  used ;  but  the  fullness  of 
the  author's  idea  must,  here  again,,  be  sought  in  the  subsequent  chapters. 
8.  Not  improbably  Godet's  view  of  the  words  povoyevovq  irapa  narpoc :  that 
they  mean  (as  rendered  in  A.  V.  and  K.  V.)  the  only  begotten  from  the 
Father,  is  correct.  But  his  argument  against  Weiss,  who  understands  the 
words  as  meaning  an  only  begotten  from  a  father,  and  as  referring  to  the 
only  son  as  inheriting  the  rank  and  fortune  of  his  father, — namely,  that 
this  explanation  would  suppose  that  every  father  who  has  an  only  son 
has  also  a  great  fortune  to  give  him,  can  hardly  be  regarded  as  having 
any  considerable  force.  We  do  not  measure  our  thought  in  such  phrases 
by  the  lower  cases,  but  by  the  higher.  The  glory  belonging  to  our  idea  of 
an  only  son  is  not  affected  by  the  fact  that  there  are  many  individual  in- 
stances in  which  there  is  no  glory  for  him.  9.  The  fact  that  ver.  18  is  added 
at  the  end  of  the  Prologue,  and  immediately  after  ver.  17  (which  declares 
that  the  revelation  of  grace  and  truth,  of  which  in  ver.  14  the  Logos  was 
said  to  be  full  as  He  became  flesh,  was  made  through  Jesus  Christ),  plainly 
connects  the  end  with  the  beginning  and  shows  that,  in  the  view  of  the 
writer,  Jesus  is  more  than  a  man — that  He  is  the  one  who  is  in  the  bosom 
of  the  Father,  and  who  both  was  with  God  and  was  God.  10.  It  does  not 
seem  to  the  writer  of  this  note  that  Godet's  view  of  the  plan  and  thought 
of  the  Prologue  is  the  true  one — that  the  three  ideas  are,  The  Logos,  un- 
belief, faith,  the  first  being  presented  in  vv.  1-4,  the  second  in  vv.  5-11, 
and  the  third  in  vv.  12-18.  On  .the  other  hand,  the  true  view  seems  rather 
to  be  that  which  has  been  already  suggested.  The  great  doctrine  of  the 
book  is,  that  Jesus  is  what  is  represented  by  the  word  Logos — the  Divine 
revealer  of  God  having  entered  into  our  humanity.  The  Prologue  pre- 
sents as  its  chief  point  the  two  propositions,  vv.  1,  14,  which  contain  the 
statements  respecting  the  Logos,  and  ver.  17  which  adds  that  concerning 
Jesus.  From  ver.  1  to  ver.  14  there  is  a  passage  subordinate  to  the  two 
main  propositions,  which  shows  the  necessity  of  what  is  stated  in  ver.  14. 
The  other  two  leading  ideas  of  the  book  are  testimony  and  believing,  the 
former  to  the  end  of  the  latter  (see  xx.  30,  31) — and  these  two  ideas  are 
suggested  in  the  Prologue,  though  only  in  a  secondary  way.    They  are 


CHAPTER  T.  523 

both  mentioned ;  but  the  former  is  made  more  prominent  (ver.  6  f.,  ver. 
15,  ver.  14  we  beheld,  comp.  1  John  i.  1  ff.),  because  testimony  belongs 
rather  to  the  beginning,  and  faith  reaches  its  fullness  of  believing  only  at 
the  end.  Yet  the  testimony  is  always  to  the  end  of  believing  on  the  part 
of'those  who  hear  it — as  truly  in  the  case  of  John  the  Baptist  at  the  first, 
as  in  that  of  John  the  evangelist  at  the  last  (comp.  i.  7  with  xx.  31). 

VII. 

The  passage  from  i.  19  to  ii.  11  is  the  Historical  Introduction,  as  it  may 
be  called.  The  object  which  it  has  in  view  is  to  bring  before  the  readers 
the  personages  who  are  to  act  the  principal  part  in  the  story.  The  ci/fitla 
are  done  {knoirjaev)  in  the  presence  of  the  disciples  (xx.  30).  In  this  pas- 
sage the  disciples  are  introduced  on  the  scene. 

As  to  the  disciples  here  mentioned,  they  were,  not  improbably,  all  of 
them  disciples  of  John  the  Baptist.  Of  the  first  two  who  are  mentioned 
this  fact  is  distinctly  recorded.  Were  these  two  persons  present  with  John 
on  the  day  preceding  that  on  which  they  went  to  see  Jesus?  This  ques- 
tion is  not  a  vital  one  to  our  determination  of  the  plan  and  object  of  this 
latter  portion  of  the  first  chapter.  But,  if  it  is  answered  in  the  affirma- 
tive, it  proves  the  connection  between  the  testimonies  of  John  to  which  refer- 
ence has  been  made  on  page  497  above.  That  it  should  be  thus  answered 
is  shown  by  the  improbability  that  they  would  have  taken  the  course  they 
did  if  they  had  heard  nothing  more  from  John  than  the  words  of  ver.  86. 
The  additional  unfolding  of  the  idea  here  suggested,  which  was  given  on 
the  preceding  day,  accounts  for  the  impression  produced  by  the  mere 
pointing  to  Jesus  when  He  appears  again.  But  without  this,  there  is  a 
blank  which  needs  to  be  filled.  Moreover,  as  these  disciples  were  tem- 
porarily absent  from  their  homes  for  the  purpose  of  hearing  John  the. 
Baptist  and  following  him,  there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  they  were 
present  with  him  on  each  day  of  the  time  at  their  command.  For  this 
reason  also,  as  well  as  because  of  the  apparent  close  connection  between 
the  several  testimonies  of  John,  we  may  believe  that  these  two  persons 
had,  in  like  manner,  heard  his  conversation  with  the  deputation  of  the 
Sanhedrim.  Their  going  to  Jesus,  accordingly,  is  the  first  instance  of 
mcTEveiv  which  answers  to  the  iiaprvpia. 

In  the  verses  which  contain  the  first  two  testimonies  of  John,  19-34,  the 
following  points  may  be  noticed  :  1.  The  record  of  John  the  Baptist  here 
is  quite  different,  and  for  quite  a  different  purpose,  from  that  of  the  other 
Gospels.  The  story  of  John's  preaching  as  given  by  the  Synoptics,  is  a 
representation  of  the  character  and  substance  of  that  preaching.  This  is 
true  of  the  passing  allusion  to  it  in  Mark,  and  also  of  the  longer  accounts 
in  Matthew  and  Luke.  But  to  this  writer,  John  is  of  importance  only  as 
related  to  his  testimony,  and  in  the  plan  of  this  introductory  passage  this 
testimony  only  bears  towards  one  result.  We  have  not  here,  therefore, 
the  general  utterances  of  John,  but  only  a  few  words  which  he  said  on 
three  successive  days.    The  circumstances  of  these  occasions,  however, 


524  ADDITIONAL  NOTES  BY  THE  AMERICAN  EDITOR. 

called  him  to  explain  his  peculiar  mission  and  his  relation  to  the  Messiah. 
Hence  it  is  not  strange  that  he  should  have  used  some  of  the  expressions 
■which  he  used  in  addressing  the  people,  and  the  presence  here  of  the 
quotation  from  Isaiah,  or  the  allusion  to  the  baptism  with  water  and  to 
the  mightier  one  who  was  to  follow,  cannot  be  urged  as,  in  any  measure, 
inconsistent  with  the  other  Gospels,  which  represent  these  words  as  used 
at  a  different  time.  These  words  must  have  been  often  on  the  Baptist's 
lips  and  have  been  spoken  to  various  hearers.  2.  In  the  second  testi- 
mony (ver.  30),  we  find  the  words  already  mentioned  in  the  Prologue  (ver. 
15)  alluded  to  as  having  been  spoken  on  a  former  occasion.  This  was  not 
on  the  preceding  day  apparently,  for  no  such  words  are  introduced  in  the 
account  of  that  day.  We  must  conclude,  therefore,  that  the  hearers  pre- 
sent on  this  occasion,  and  probably  the  two  disciples,  had  been  also  pre- 
sent when  John  preached  before  the  beginning  of  what  is  here  narrated. 
These  disciples  had  been,  for  a  brief  period  at  least,  under  the  educating 
influence  of  the  forerunner  in  a  certain  kind  of  preparation  for  belief  in 
Jesus.  3,  That  the  baptism  of  Jesus  must  be  placed  before  ver.  19,  is  clear 
from  the  fact  that  it  must  have  occurred  at  an  earlier  time  than  the  day 
indicated  in  ver.  29,  because  of  the  allusion  to  it  (vv.  33,  34)  as  already 
past.  But  if  it  preceded  ver.  29,  it  must  also  have  preceded  ver.  19,  be- 
cause the  forty  days  of  the  temptation  followed  the  baptism  and  during 
this  period  Jesus  could  not  have  been  accessible  to  others  as  he  was  here. 
Moreover,  if  He  had  been  baptized  on  the  day  mentioned  in  ver.  19,  that 
is,  only  a  single  day  before  ver.  29,  it  is  scarcely  possible  that  the  words 
used  by  John  the  Baptist  respecting  the  event  should  be  only  what  we  have 
here.  4.  As  to  the  meaning  of  the  words  J  knew  him  not  (vv.  31,  33), 
Godet  holds  that  they  declare  that  John  did  not  know  Jesus  a  man,  for  if 
he  had  known  Him  thus,  he  must  have  known  Him  also  as  the  Messiah. 
Meyer,  on  the  other  hand,  says  that  this  expression  leaves  it  quite  uncer- 
tain whether  he  had  any  personal  acquaintance  with  Jesus.  Westcott 
regards  the  story  in  Luke  as  leaving  it  doubtful  whether  any  such  personal 
acquaintance  existed.  But,  if  the  narrative  in  Luke  is  to  be  accepted,  it 
seems  almost  impossible  that  John  should  not  have  had  some  such  know- 
ledge of  Jesus  as  would  prevent  his  saying  so  absolutely,  I  did  not  know 
him.  The  circumstances  of  Jesus'  birth,  and  of  John's  own  birth  as  related 
to  that  of  Jesus,  were  so  remarkable,  that  John  could  hardly  have  lost 
sight  of  Him  altogether.  Moreover,  the  words  addressed  to  Jesus  by 
John  in  Matt.  iii.  14  are  very  difficult  to  be  accounted  for,  if  Jesus  was  alto- 
gether unknown  personally  to  him.  Weiss  attempts  to  explain  the  diffi- 
culty by  supposing  that  the  ydeiv  does  not  refer  to  the  time  of  the  baptism, 
but  to  the  time  of  the  verb  f/Wov  which  follows,  that  is  to  say,  the  time 
when  John  entered  upon  his  public  office.  But  this  seems  wholly  improb- 
able in  the  case  of  t/Seiv  of  ver.  33,  which  occurs  in  the  midst  of  the 
account  of  what  he  saw  at  the  baptism,  and  appears  to  be  contrasted  with 
the  knowledge  which  he  gained  by  seeing  the  fulfillment  of  the  sign — he 
was  without  this  knowledge  even  at  the  baptismal  scene,  until  the  moment 
when  he  saw  the  dove  descending.    It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  the  ex- 


CHAPTER   I.  525 

plan.ation  must  be  sought  for  in  connection  with  the  idea  of  the  Baptist's 
testimony,  for  which  the  whole  matter  is  introduced.  He  did  not  know 
Jesus,  in  such  a  sense  that  he  could  go  forth  as  the  witness  sent  from  God 
(ver.  G),  and  testify  that  Jesus  was  the  Son  of  God,  until  the  divinely  pro- 
mised proof  had  been  given.  However  much  the  friends,  or  even  the 
mother  of  Jesus  herself,  may  have  thought  of  a  glorious  mission  as  await- 
ing Him  in  life,  they  could  not  have  felt  sure  that  He  was  to  hold  the  Mes- 
sianic office,  until  they  saw  the  evidences  which  came  with  His  entrance 
upon  His  public  career.  But  John — to  be  the  great  witness,  giving  the 
assurance  of  a  Divine  word — must  certainly  have  waited  for  the  sign,  be- 
fore he  could  feel  that  he  knew  as  he  ought  to  know.  In  this  connection, 
also,  it  may  be  noticed  that  John's  testimony  seems  to  take  hold,  in  some 
measure,  upon  the  thoughts  which  the  writer  brings  out  in  the  Prologue 
(comp.  ver.  30,  he  ivas  before  me,  ver.  34,  the  Son  of  God),  and  surely,  for  the 
knowledge  of  these,  things,  he  needed  a  divine  communication.  He  may 
have  believed  in  Jesus'  exaltation  above  himself  (Matt.  iii.  14)  by  reason 
of  what  he  had  hejjrd  of  the  story  of  His  birth  or  the  years  that  followed. 
He  may,  thus,  have  felt  that  he  might  rather  be  baptized  by  Jesus  than 
baptize  Him.  He  paay  even  have  had  little  doubt  that  He  was  the  Mes- 
siah. But  he  could  not  know  Him  as  such,  until  the  word  of  God  which 
had  come  to  him  was  fulfilled. 

VIII. 

In  connection  with  the  third  testimony  of  John,  the  result  in  believing  is 
given ;  the  two  disciples  go  to  Jesus.  With  respect  to  the  one  of  them 
who  is  not  named,  we  may  notice :  1.  That  he  is,  beyond  any  reasonable 
doubt,  one  of  the  apostolic  company  as  afterwards  constituted.  This  is 
proved  by  his  connection  with  Andrew ;  by  the  fact  that  he  is  undoubtedly 
to  be  included  among  those  disciples  who  went  to  Cana  (ii.  2),  and  to  , 
Capernaum  (ii.  12),  and  so,  also,  among  those  who  are  referred  to  as  being 
present  with  Jesus  at  Jerusalem  (ii.  17,  22) ;  and  by  the  fact  that  in  the 
subsequent  history  the  "  disciples,"  who  are  made  thus  especially  promi- 
nent, are  clearly  the  apostles.  2.  That  he  is  particularly  connected  with 
Andrew  and  Peter.  He  must,  therefore,  have  been  one  of  the  apostolic 
company  who  had  this  relation  to  those  two  brothers  before  their  disciple- 
ship  to  Jesus  began.  It  appears  probable,  also,  that  he  is  the  same  un- 
named person  who  has  similar  intimacy  with  Peter  after  their  entrance 
upon  their  apostolic  office.  3.  That  the  only  persons  whom  the  Synoptic 
Gospels  present  to  us  as  thus  united  with  Andrew  and  Peter  are  the  two 
sons  of  Zebedee.  4.  That  there  is,  to  say  the  least,  a  possible  and  not 
improbable  allusion  to  his  having  a  brother  whom  he  introduced  to  Jesus. 
If  so,  the  evidence  that  the  two  were  James  and  John  is  strengthened,  but 
this  point  is  not  essential  to  the  proof.  5.  That,  if  the  companion  of 
Andrew  was  either  James  or  John,  and  if  he  is  the  one  who  is  alluded  to, 
but  not  named,  in  subsequent  chapters,  there  can  be  no  question  as  to 
which  of  the  two  he  was.  If  he  was  the  author,  he  could  not  be  James, 
who  was  dead  long  before  the  book  was  written.    Whether  he  was  the 


526  ADDITIONAL   NOTES   BY   THE   AMERICAN   EDITOR. 

author  or  not,  James  had  died  too  early,  as  Godet  has  remarked,  for  any 
such  report  to  spread  abroad  as  that  which  is  referred  to  in  xxi.  23.  Weiss, 
in  his  edition  of  Meyer's  Commentary  (as  also  Westcott  and  Hort),  holds 
that  npuTov,  and  not  npurog,  is  the  true  reading  in  ver.  41,  and  Weiss  main- 
tains, that,  with  either  reading,  the  word  does  not  suggest  the  finding  of  the 
brother  of  Andrew's  companion,  but  that,  on  the  other  hand,  it  simply 
marks  the  finding  of  Peter  as  the  first  instance  to  which  vv.  43,  45,  answer 
as  a  second  and  third.  Meyer,  however,  reads  npu-og,  and  agrees  with 
Godet,  that  there  is  here  a  reference  to  James.  Westcctt,  also,  who  adopts 
npCtTov  as  the  text,  agrees  with  these  writers  in  the  opinion  that  James  is 
probably  alluded  to.  It  is  observed  that  the  indication  of  the  verse  is 
found  not  only  in  this  word,  but  also  in  the  emphatic  ititov,  and  in  the  fact 
that  the  verse  follows  and  is  apparently  connected  with  ver.  40  (one  of  the 
two — he  first  findeth  his  own),  and  that  the  specifying  of  the  finding  of 
Peter  as  the  first  case  of  finding  seems  wholly  unnecessary,  and,  consider- 
ing the  separation  of  the  verses  which  give  the  account  of  the  other  find- 
ings from  this  one,  antecedently  improbable.  Weiss  also  holds,  that  the 
finding  of  Peter  tooK  place  on  a  different  day  from  that  of  the  visit  of  the 
two  disciples  to  Jesus.  But,  while  this  is  possible,  it  seems  more  probable 
that  it  occurred  on  the  same  day  at  evening,  the  days  being  reckoned  by 
the  daylight  hours.  In  so  carefully  marked  a  narrative,  v/e  can  hardly 
suppose  a  new  day  to  be  inserted  with  no  designation  of  it.  The  result  in 
faith  of  this  first  day  was  a  conviction  on  the  part  of  these  disciples  that 
they  had  found  in  Jesus  the  Messiah.  Even  this  conviction  could  not, 
probably,  in  so  short  an  interview,  have  reached  its  highest  point.  On  the 
other  hand,  as  related  to  the  full  belief  of  the  later  days  with  respect  to 
all  that  Jesus  was,  this  must  have  been  only  the  earliest  beginning  of  the 
development  of  years. 

IX. 

In  connection  with  vv.  43-52  the  following  points  may  be  noticed : — 1. 
The  impression  produced  upon  the  mind  of  Nathanael  is  occasioned  (at 
least,  so  far  as  the  record  goes),  by  something  beyond  Avhat  occurred  in 
the  other  cases.  There  is  an  exhibition  of  what  seemed  to  him  miracu- 
lous knowledge  on  Jesus'  part.  As  to  what  this  was  precisely,  there  is  a 
difference  of  opinion  among  commentators,  as  Godet  states  in  his  note. 
That  Godet  is  right  here,  as  against  Meyer  and  others,  is  rendered  probable 
by  the  very  deep  impression  which  evidently  was  made  on  Nathanael, 
and  by  the  fact  that  the  recording  of  what  Jesus  says  of  him,  in  ver.  47, 
can  scarcely  be  explained  unless  we  hold  that  these  words,  as  well  as  those 
of  ver.  48,  affected  his  mind. — 2.  The  answer  of  Nathanael,  also,  expresses 
more  than  what  we  find  in  the  other  cases.  He  says,  indeed,  what  they 
say  :  Thou  art  the  king  of  Israel  (the  Messiah).  But  he  also  says :  Thou 
art  the  Son  of  God.  We  may  believe  that  this  second  expression  answers 
to  the  second  element  in  the  manifestation  which  Jesus  made  to  him  : 
namely,  the  miraculous  insight  into  his  character.  Jesus  awakened,  by  this 
means,  a  conviction  in  Nathanael's  mind,  that  He  had  a  peculiar  relation 


CHAPTER   II.  527 

to  God;  in  some  sense,  at  least,  a  divine  side  in  His  nature  or  character. 
The  view  that  the  title  Son  of  God  here  is  simply  equivalent  to  Messiah  is 
improbable,  when  we  consider  the  peculiarities  of  this  story,  as  compared 
with  the  others.  But  we  cannot  hold  that  Nathanael  grasped  at  once  the 
fullness  of  the  significance  of  this  term,  as  it  is  used  in  xx.  31. — 3.  The 
words  of  ver.  52  (51)  are  evidently  spoken  with  reference,  not  only  to 
Nathanael,  but  to  all  the  disciples  who  were  now  with  Jesus.  It  is  quite 
probable  that,  in  the  plan  of  the  book,  they  are  inserted  here  as  looking 
forward  to  all  the  ar/fiela  which  are  to  be  recorded  afterwards,  and  which, 
beginning  with  the  one  at  Cana,  proved  to  the  disciples  the  union  between 
Jesus  and  God. 

4.  That  this  gathering  of  disciples  about  Jesus  is  quite  independent  of 
any  story  in  the  Synoptics,  and  is  antecedent  to  the  call  of  which  the 
account  is  given  in  Matt.  iv.  18-22,  Mk.  i.  16-20  and  Luke  v.  1-11,  is 
evident  from  the  fact  that  the  Synoptic  narratives  begin  the  history  at  a 
later  date.  Moreover,  the  readiness  with  which  the  four  disciples  (Andrew, 
Peter,  James  and  John)  left  their  business  and  their  homes  immediately 
upon  the  (Synoptic)  call,  is  almost  inexplicable  unless  there  was  some 
previous  acquaintance  and  impression  such  as  we  discover  here.  Meyer 
affirms  that  John  and  the  Synoptics  are  irreconcilable  with  each  other  in 
respect  to  this  matter,  because  these  five  or  six  disciples  are  with  Jesus  in 
ii.  2  and  remain  with  Him.  Weiss,  in  his  edition  of  Meyer,  takes  the 
opposite  ground.  He,  however,  maintains  that  we  cannot  assert  that  the 
liaOrjTai,  who  are  spoken  in  ii.  17-iv.  54,  are  the  same  with  these  five  or  six 
or  that  they  include  all  of  these.  He  even  goes  so  far  as  to  say  that  there 
is  no  indication  in  this  chapter  that  Simon  joined  Jesus,  and  calls  attention 
to  the  fact  that  in  Luke  v.  1  ff.  the  story  of  the  call  is  centered  upon  Peter. 
Both  of  these  writers  have  taken  wrong  positions;  Meyer,  in  insisting 
that  no  place  can  be  found  for  the  call  in  John's  narrative  after  the  first 
chapter,  and  Weiss,  in  supposing  that  Peter  may  not  have  acted  at  this 
time  as  the  others  did,  and  that  /ladrjTai  of  ii.  17,  etc.,  is  not  intended  by  the 
author  to  designate  the  same  persons — or,  at  least,  to  give  them  a  promi- 
nence— who  are  mentioned  in  ch.  i.  As  Keil  remarks,  the  statements  with 
regard  to  the  disciples  in  the  second  chapter,  if  we  suppose  them  to  be 
the  same  with  those  mentioned  in  ch.  i.,  do  not  exclude  the  possibility  of 
intervals  of  separation  from  Jesus,  after  their  first  meeting  with  Him,  and 
of  return  to  their  former  employments.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind 
that  John's  narrative  is  a  selection  of  stories  made  for  the  purpose  of 
setting  forth  proofs  and  the  groxcth  of  faith,  and  not  a  complete  or  alto- 
gether continuous  record  of  Jesus'  life. 

X. 

Chapter  II. 

1.  The  first  eleven  verses  of  ch.  ii.  are  evidently  connected  with  the  firsfc 
chapter,  because  of  the  continuance  of  the  designation  of  the  days, 
because  of  the  fact  that  in  ver.  11  the  miracle  is  connected  with  the  faith 


528  ADDITIONAL   XOTES   BY  THE   AMERICAN    EDITOR. 

of  the  disciples  mentioned,  and  because  the  story  of  the  public  life  of 
Jesus  and  His  first  Messianic  appearance  evidently  begins  with  ver.  13. 
The  historical  introduction,  accordingly,  closes  with  ii.  12.  The  expla- 
nation of  the  design  of  the  miracle  recorded  in  these  verses  is  thus  easily 
seen  to  be  that  which  the  writer  indicates  in  ver.  11 ;  it  was  to  manifest 
the  glory  of  Jesus  before  these  disciples,  to  the  end  of  confirming  their 
belief  in  Him.  Any  other  purpose,  such  as  that  of  turning  the  minds  of 
the  disciples  away  from  the  severities  of  the  old  system  to  the  free,  joyful 
service  of  the  new,  must  have  been  altogether  subordinate  and  secondary. 
The  book  is  written  for  testimony  and  its  results,  and  the  miracle  was 
needed  now  for  testimony.  It  was  of  the  highest  importance  that  these 
five  or  six  men,  who  were  to  be  apostles,  should  be  established  in  their 
faith  at  this  time.  The,  character  of  the  miracle  was  determined,  as  all 
the  miracles  of  Jesus'  life  seem  to  have  been,  by  the  circumstances  which 
presented  themselves.  So,  in  this  case,  it  was  a  miracle  at  a  wedding  and 
a  miracle  of  turning  water  into  wine.  That  it  taught  or.  might  teach 
other  lessons  was  incidental ;  that  it  taught  faith  was  the  reason  for  per- 
forming it.     It  was  a  cti/xeIov. 

As  to  particular  points  in  these  verses,  it  may  be  remarked  : — 1.  In  the 
presentation  of  the  story  we  may  see  that  the  writer  is  guided  by  the  end 
which  he  has  in  view.  The  circumstances  mentioned  set  forth  the  stinking 
character  of  the  miracle  and  its  reality,  and  the  narrative  also  makes 
prominent  the  words  addressed  by  Jesus  to  His  mother.  The  first  two  of 
these  points  have  a  direct  bearing,  evidently,  on  the  manifestation  of  His 
glory  (ver.  11).  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  same  is  true  of  the 
third.  The  words  that  are  found  in  vv.  3-5  look  towards  a  miracu- 
lous work  as  a  possibility. — 2.  The  answer  of  Jesus  in  ver.  4  can  hardly 
be  explained,  if  the  request  of  Mary  was  only  that  He  would,  in  some 
ordinary  way,  help  the  family  out  of  their  present  embarrassment.  This 
was  so  reasonable  a  suggestion  on  her  part,  it  would  seem,  that  He  could 
not  have  replied  to  it  either  with  such  an  element  of  severity  in  His 
words  or  with  such  a  form  of  expression.  Her  meaning,  therefore,  must 
apparently  have  involved  something  beyond  this.  The  instance  most 
nearly  resembling  this,  in  which  we  find  in  this  Gospel  the  words  "my  (or, 
the)  hour  (or  time)  is  not  yet  come,"  is  that  in  vii.  6,  where  the  brethren  of 
Jesus  urge  Him  to  make  Himself  known  more  publicly  at  Jerusalem.  We 
may  believe  that,  on  the  present  occasion  also,  there  was  somewhat  of  the 
same  thought  in  His  mother's  mind.  She  must  have  been  looking  for  the 
time  when  He  would  come  forward  publicly ;  she  must  have  expected  it 
with  increasing  interest,  and  with  even  impatient  desire  perchance,  as  He 
moved  forward  in  His  manhood ;  she  must  have  thought  it  near  when  He 
left  her  for  John's  baptism  ;  she  may  even  have  known  from  Himself  that 
it  was  near.  He  had  now  returned  from  the  baptism  with  disciples — why 
should  not  this  be  the  time?  Whether  we  are  to  understand,  therefore, 
that  she  was  asking  for  an  exhibition  of  miraculous  power  in  the  par- 
ticular emergency  of  the  hour  or  not,  it  seems  impossible  to  doubt  that 
there  was  in  her  mind  some  call  for  a  display  on  His  part  of  His 


CHAPTER   II.  529 

Messianic  character  and  dignity  which  should  go,  in  its  publicity  and 
effect,  beyond  the  company  then  present,  and  become  in  itself  the 
assumption  as  ii*  before  the  world,  of  His  office.  The  time  for  this  had 
not  yet  come.  The  path  which  opened  to  His  mind  and  that  which 
opened  to  hers  were  different.  He  must  go  forward  by  slow  steps, 
and  begin  by  simply  confirming  the  faith  of  the  few  disciples  who 
were  the  foundations  of  His  Church. 


XI. 

Beginning  with  ii.  13,  the  account  of  the  first  visit  of  Jesus  to  Jerusalem 
is  given.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  five  or  six  disciples  were  with 
Him  in  this  visit.  Ver.  12  states  that  they  went  with  Him  from  Cana  to 
Capernaum,  and  that  they  (not  He  alone)  remained  there  not  many  days. 
It  is  then  said  (ver.  13)  that  He  went  up  to  Jerusalem ;  and  at  the  close 
of  each  story. of  what  He  did  there  (vv.  17,  22),  the  relation  of  His  words 
or  actions  to  the  thoughts  of  the  disciples  is  referred  to.  When  we  add  to 
this  the  evident  design  of  the  writer  to  set  forth  the  growing  faith  of  the 
disciples  in  their  association  with  Jesus,  the  probability  in  the  case  rises 
almost  to  certainty. 

There  are  four  points  of  special  interest  connected  with  these  verses 
(13-25): — 1.  As  the  miracle  at  Cana  had  by  reason  of  the  supernatural 
power  exhibited  in  it  confirmed  their  faith,  two  means  of  a  different  order 
are  now  employed  for  the  same  end.  The  driving  out  of  the  dealers  is  an 
exhibition  of  His  prophetic  zeal.  It  was  the  power  of  the  prophet  that 
awed  and  overcame  those  who  had  desecrated  the  sacred  place.  The  im- 
pression made  on  the  disciples  was  immediate  and  profound  (ver.  17). 
The  testimony  comes  to  them  in  a  new  line.  As.  related  to  the  scene  at 
Cana,  however,  it  comes  in  the  right  order  of  proof.  The  miracle  is  the 
first  cT/fieiov,  the  prophet's  work  is  the  second.  The  matter  recorded  in  ver. 
18  ff.  is  of  another  character.  As  we  see  by  ver.  22,  it  was  not  fully  under- 
stood at  the  time.  The  scene  at  Cana  and  the  one  with  the  dealers  taught 
their  lesson  at  once  ;  the  disciples  believed  (ver.  11),  and  they  remembered 
and  applied  what  was  written  (ver.  17).  But  this  scene  suggested  a  ques- 
tion which  they  could  not  answer.  It  was  a  question,  however,  to  which 
their  minds  might  naturally  often  turn,  and  it  was  one  which  would  lead 
them  to  the  thought  of  the  wonderful  element  in  His  person  and  charac- 
ter. It  worked  as  a  proof  by  reason  of  the  strangeness  belonging  to  it. 
What  could  be  the  significance  of  those  remarkable  words?  What  a  won- 
derful man  must  He  be  who  could  utter  them  of  Himself!  The  different 
character  of  the  signs,  as  the  author  brings  them  I  efor  s  us,  may  well  ar- 
rest attention.  2.  In  respect  to  the  last  point  (ver.  18  ff.),  it  is  said  that  the 
disciples  did  not  come  to  the  right  apprehension  of  the  meaning  of  Jesus' 
words  until  after  He  rose  from  the  dead.  In  the  following  verses,  persons 
are  spoken  of  who  were  led  by  the  signs  to  believe,  but  not  to  believe  in 
such  a  way  that  Jesus  could  trust  Himself  to  them.  These  statements 
show  clearly  that  the  author  is  marking  in  the  progress  of  his  narrative 
34 


530  ADDITIONAL   NOTES   BY   THE   AMERICAN   EDITOR. 

the  development  of  faith.  These  indications,  also,  are  of  such  a  nature 
that  they  point  us  to  an  author  contemporary  with  the  facts  as  the  one 
who  gives  them.  They  are  of  the  simple,  artless  sort,  which  men  removed 
from  the  actual  scenes  do  not  think  of.  3.  The  signs  referred  to  in  ver. 
23  are  not  described  or  related  in  the  chapter.  The  inference  which  must 
be  drawn  is,  that  the  writer  purposely  selects  those  things  only  which  af- 
fected the  disciples,  and  those  even  which  moved  them  in  a  different  way 
from  the  miracle,  properly  so-called,  which  they  had  witnessed  at  Cana. 
4.  We  may  add  that,  at  this  point,  ch.  iii.  opens  with  a  testimony  which 
lies  wholly  within  the  sphere  of  words. 

As  to  the  questions  arising  in  connection  with  these  verses,  which 
relate  to  the  difference  between  this  Gospel  and  the  Synoptics,  it  may  be 
said,  in  the  first  place,  that  both  of  the  two  things  mentioned  seem  better 
suited  to  the  beginning  of  the  public  life  of  Jesus  than  to  its  end.  The 
demand  for  a  sign,  with  the  particular  answer  here  given,  is  more  easily 
accounted  for  as  made  on  His  first  appearance,  than  at  the  period  when, 
after  three  years  of  ministry,  He  comes  to  Jerusalem  for  the  last  time 
and  enters  it  with  a  sort  of  triumphal  procession.  It  will  be  noticed,  in- 
deed, that  in  the  Synoptical  account  these  words  about  the  temple  are 
only  mentioned  as  what  the  false  witnesses  reported  that  they  had  heard, 
and  that  Mark  says,  apparently  with  reference  to  this  matter  (comp.  Mk. 
xiv.  59  with  58),  that  they  did  not  agree  with  one  another  in  their  state- 
ments. This  may  most  readily  be  explained,  if  the  words  of  Jesus  had 
been  uttered  two  years  before.  As  for  the  driving  out  of  the  traders,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  acton  the  part  of  Jesus  which  is  here  related  would 
seem  to  be  just  that  which,  in  the  first  impulse  of  His  mission,  He  would 
be  not  unlikely  to  do.  It  belongs  in  its  character,  as  we  might  say,  to 
first  impulses,  and  not  to  the  feelings  of  that  later  time  when  the  deadly 
conflict  with  the  Jewish  authorities  was  at  hand.  It  is,  moreover,  just 
such  an  act  as — awakening  astonishment  by  reason  of  its  boldness  and  the 
prophetic  impulse  which  characterized  it — might  naturally  induce  the 
leading  JeAvs  to  ask  the  newly-appearing  prophet  what  sign  He  had  to 
show.  The  difficulty  with  respect  to  these  points  lies,  therefore,  not  in  the 
fact  that  this  Gospel  places  the  occurrences  at  the  beginning  of  the  history, 
but  in  the  fact  that  the  Synoptics  (Matt,  and  Mk.)  place  them  (or,  rather, 
one  of  them)  at  the  end.  We  may  not  be  able  to  explain  this  difficulty, 
but  the  limitation  of  the  Synoptic  narratives  may,  in  some  way,  have  oc- 
casioned the  representation  which  they  give.  Such  questions  belong,  in 
large  measure,  with  the  comprehensive  one,  as  to  why  the  earliest  writers 
confined  themselves  almost  exclusively  to  the  Galilean  story. 

XII. 

Chapter  III. 

The  first  twenty-one  verses  of  the  third  chapter  contain  the  account  of 
the  interview  between  Jesus  and  Nicodemus.  This  interview  occurred 
during  the  visit  to  Jerusalem  at  the  Passover,  and,  when  viewed  in  its 


CHAPTER   III.  531 

close  connection  with  ii.  13-25,  it  cannot  be  reasonably  doubted  that  tbe 
story  is  inserted  here  as  a  part  of  the  testimony  to  Jesus.  It  is  the  first 
testimony  of  the  words,  which  play  so  important  a  part  in  what  follows,  as 
the  Cana  miracle  was  the  first  of  the  works.  On  this  passage  the  follow- 
ing suggestions  may  be  offered : — 1.  It  is  evident  that  Nicodemus  was  one 
of  those  whose  attention  was  aroused  by  the  "signs"  alluded  to  in  ii.  23. 
His  mind  must,  therefore,  have  been  in  a  susceptible  state,  beyond  most 
of  those  around  him,  and  he  came  to  Jesus  honestly  to  inquire  after  the 
truth.  The  course  taken  by  him  on  the  occasion  referred  to  in  vii.  45-52 
makes  it  probable  that  he  was  established  in  his  belief  in  consequence  of, 
and  as  following  upon  this  interview.  His  action  at  the  time  of  vii.  45  ff., 
was  both  honorable  and  courageous.  So  was  that  which  is  related  of  him 
in  xix.  38-42.  The  latter  action  showed  love  to  Jesus  of  a  most  tender  order. 
And  yet  the  mere  statement  of  the  author  of  this  Gospel  that  he  made 
his  first  visit  to  Jesus  by  night  has  been,  as  it  were,  the  only  thing  borne 
in  mind  respecting  him,  and  has  determined  the  estimate  of  his  character. 
Tbe  author,  however,  does  not  say  that  this  first  coming  was  by  night 
because  of  unworthy  fear,  much  less  that  Nicodemus  was  marked  in  his 
whole  career  by  this  characteristic.  2.  That  he  visited  Jesus  with  a  mind 
open  to  conviction,  and  with  an  honest  desire  to  hear  what  He  had  to  say, 
is  evident  from  the  second  verse  as  most  naturally  explained.  There  is 
no  reason  to  believe  that  his  first  words  were  spoken  in  any  other  than  a 
straightforward  and  sincere  way.  We  must  believe  that  some  conversa- 
tion on  the  part  of  both  parties  took  place  between  ver.  2  and  ver.  3.  It 
is  probable  that  Nicodemus  came  to  inquire  as  to  what  Jesus  had  to  say 
about  the  Messianic  Kingdom,  and  that,  after  introducing  the  whole  con- 
versation by  the  words  of  ver.  2,  he  soon  raised  the  question  which  he  had 
in  mind  as  to  that  subject.  Otherwise,  the  words  of  Jesus  in  ver.  3  have 
an  abruptness  which  is  almost  inexplicable.  3.  The  idea  of  Nicodemus 
with  regard  to  the  kingdom  was,  of  course,  the  ordinary  one  of  the  time, 
according  to  which  it  was  to  be  a  temporal  kingdom  for  the  Jews.  The 
entrance  into  it  was  through  a  Jewish  birth,  so  far  as  the  chosen  nation 
was  concerned.  Jesus  strikes  at  the  very  foundation  of  this  idea,  and 
makes  the  entrance  to  be  only  through  a  birth  of  another  sort — a  birth  of 
the  spirit.  The  difficulty  which  Nicodemus  sets  forth  in  the  question  of 
ver.  4  is  connected  with  this  marvelously  new  idea,  and  is  to  be  inter- 
preted accordingly,  and  not  according  to  the  literalism  of  its  words.  The 
state  of  Nicodemus'  mind  is  that  of  ver.  9:  "How  can  these  things  be?" 
— that  is,  the  new  doctrine  is  incomprehensible.  He  stood,  in  this  regard, 
where  the  Jewish  opponents  of  Paul  stood,  when  he  taught  the  doctrine 
of  justification,  not  through  possession  of  the  law  and  the  being  a  Jew 
outwardly,  but  through  a  new  and  living  principle,  even  faith  in  Jesus 
Christ.  4.  The  meaning  of  the  word  avuOev — whether  from  above  or  anrw 
— must  be  regarded  as  doubtful.  The  arguments  in  favor  of  the  former 
meaning  are  :  (a)  The  use  of  the  word  in  the  sense/row  above  in  the  only 
other  instances  in  John's  Gospel  which  can  be  compared  with  this  case. 
There  are,  however,  only  two  such  instances.     In  xix.  23  it  is  used  of  the 


632  ADDITIONAL   NOTES   BY  THE   AMERICAN   EDITOR. 

tunic  of  Jesus,  which  is  said  to  have  been  woven  from  the  top  throughout. 
(b)  One  of  these  two  instances  is  in  this  present  chapter  (ver.  31).  This 
fact — although  the  word  occurs  in  the  report  of  the  expressions  of  John 
the  Baptist  on  another  occasion — would  seem  to  indicate  what  the  writer 
understood  by  it.  (c)  The  Johannean  idea  of  the  spiritual  birth  is  that 
of  being  bom  of  God,  of  the  Spirit,  that  is,  from  above,  and  not  of  a  new 
or  second  birth.  Born  of  the  Spirit  is  an  expression  found  in  this  very  con- 
versation, (rf)  For  the  idea  of  a  second  birth  ■xakiv  or  Jevrepov  would  have 
been  more  naturally  selected.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  claimed  (a)  that  the 
understanding  of  Nicodemus  was  that  it  was  a  second  birth  (see  ver.  4) ;  (6) 
that  the  word  was  so  understood  by  the  translators  of  the  Peshito,  Coptic, 
Old  Latin  and  Vulgate  versions;  (c)  that  in  the  passage  from  Artemidorus, 
which  is  referred  to  by  Godet — the  only  instance  in  the  classics  where 
avudev  yewdcdai  is  used,  it  has  this  meaning ;  so  also  the  adverb  in  the  two 
other  passages  cited  by  Godet  in  his  note  from  Josephus  and  the  Acta 
Pauli;  (d)  that  the  use  in  Gal.  iv.  9  justifies  this  meaning;  (e)  that,  if 
Jesus  had  here  meant  from  above,  He  would  have  used  the  expression  in 
deov,  instead  of  this  adverb.  The  tendency  of  the  majority  of  commenta- 
tors has  been,  on  the  whole,  towards  the  latter  view,  or  towards  the  posi- 
tion taken  by  R.  V.,  which  places  anew  in  the  text,  and  from  above  in  the 
margin.  If  the  second  view  is  adopted,  it  must  be  observed — as  is  now 
generally  admitted — that  the  word  does  not  mean  precisely  again  {-aliv) 
or  a  second  time  (tievrepov),  but,  as  in  Gal.  iv.  9,  from  the  beginning,  as  indi- 
cating the  idea  of  beginning  over  again,  and  thus  of  a  completely  new  birth. 
The  writer  of  this  note  would  merely  express  his  own  view  that  from  above 
is  somewhat  more  probably  the  correct  rendering  of  the  word,  because 
this  meaning  seems  more  in  accordance  with  the  general  Johannean  idea 
of  the  spiritual  life — that  it  comes,  in  every  sense,  from  heaven — and  also 
because  this  is  evidently  the  meaning  of  avudev  in  ver.  31.  That  Nicode- 
mus spoke  of  a  second  birth  does  not  seem  to  be  the  measure  for  the 
determination  of  Jesus'  thought.  In  the  bewilderment  of  his  mind  as  to 
the  words  of  Jesus,  any  idea  of  birth  must  have  seemed  to  him  to 
suggest  a  second  birth  of  some  sort,  and  especially  as  his  idea  of 
the  kingdom  was,  that  it  was  to  belong  to  Jews  by  reason  of  their  birth. 
Nicodemus  Avas  evidently  unable  to  grasp  the  thought  of  Jesus  with 
a  clear  apprehension  of  it.  5.  With  reference  to  ver.  5,  the  following 
brief  suggestions  are  offered :  (a)  If  we  take  the  conversation  as  it  stands 
recorded,  we  can  hardly  explain  the  words  of  this  verse,  unless  they  con- 
nect themselves  with  something  which  might  easily  have  been  before  the 
mind  of  Nicodemus  when  the  interview  began,  (b)  This  thing  musthave  been 
outside  of  his  old,  Pharisaic  ideas,  for  the  whole  exposition  of  the  entrance- 
way  and  life  of  the  kingdom  is  clearly  intended  to  take  him  wholly  away 
from  those  ideas— to  aAvaken  him,  as  it  were,  by  a  startling  contradiction  of 
what  he  had  previously  had  in  mind,  to  a  new  world  of  thought,  (c)  The 
only  thing  which  can  have  suggested  the  words  here  used  must,  therefore, 
have  been  the  teaching  and  work  of  John  the  Baptist.  That  this  work  and 
teaching  h*ad  affected  the  mind  of  Nicodemus  we  may  believe  because  of  his 


CHAPTER   III.  533 

coming  to  Jesus.  His  coming,  in  itself,  showed  that  his  attention  had  hcen 
easily  turned  to  the  great  subject  of  the  kingdom.  A  mind  thus  ready 
could  not  have  overlooked  the  remarkable  work  of  John,  or  have  failed, 
if  his  attention  was  given  to  it,  to  consider  the  chief  elements  of  John's 
doctrine,  (d)  One  of  the  striking  expressions  of  John,  in  setting  forth 
his  office  and  his  relation  to  Jesus,  was  that  respecting  baptism  with 
water  and  with  the  Spirit.  If  Nicodemus  had  known  of  John's  preach- 
ing, it  would  seem  that  he  must  have  had  his  attention  drawn  to  this 
expression,  (e)  In  explaining  the  matter  of  the  entrance  into  the  king- 
dom, therefore,  it  would  not  be  unnatural  for  Jesus  to  turn  the  mind 
of  Nicodemus  away  from  his  past  ideas  to  the  ideas  belonging  to  the 
Christian  system  by  uniting  these  two  words  water  and  spirit.  The  work 
for  which  the  forerunner  prepares  the  way,  and  which  He  himself 
introduces  and  sets  on  its  course,  is  that  by  which  men  are  drawn  away 
from  the  outward  and  temporal  view  of  the  kingdom  to  individual  spir- 
itual life.  (/)  If  there  is  in  the  words  this  uniting  of  His  work  with 
John's,  we  may  easily  understand  why  the  word  water  falls  away  at 
once  and  the  further  development  is  wholly  in  the  use  of  the  word  spirit. 
(g)  The  immediate  and  primary  reference  in  vdarog  is,  accordingly,  not  to 
baptism  as  found  in  the  Christian  system,  though,  in  the  fullness  of  the 
idea  of  the  sentence  in  the  mind  of  Jesus,  there  may  have  been  a  second- 
ary reference  to  it.  But  whatever  may  be  said  as  to  this  point,  there  can 
be  no  doubt  that  the  main  thought  of  Jesus,  which  was  intended  to  be 
conveyed  to  Nicodemus,  was  that  of  the  spiritual  birth  as  essential  to  mem- 
bership in  the  kingdom.  6.  The  meaning  of  oap%,  as  used  in  ver.  6,  is  to 
be  limited  to  the  physical  idea,  and  not  to  be  regarded  as  including  the 
moral.  The  object  of  this  verse  is  to  confirm,  by  the  contrast  here  indi- 
cated, the  necessity  of  the  new  birth.  The  natural  birth,  as  into  the  Jew- 
ish people,  can  only  result  in  what  pertains  to  the  physical  or  psychical 
sphere,  but  the  kingdom  of  God  is  in  a  higher  sphere.  The  aim  of  Jesus 
is,  throughout,  to  show  Nicodemus  that  his  old  views  were  utterly  wrong. 

7.  The  thought  of  ver.  8  is  immediately  connected  with  ver.  7.  Nicode- 
mus should  not  marvel  at  the  idea  of  a  new  birth  of  the  spirit,  for  the 
analogy  of  nature  shows  results  coming  from  invisible  sources.  But  it 
seems  not  improbable,  also,  that  there  is  a  suggestion  here  of  the  origin 
of  membership  in  the  kingdom  as  being  widely  different  from  what  he 
had  thought.  It  is  an  influence  working  in  an  unseen  way,  which  may 
affect  any  one  of  any  nation,  and  may  leave  any  one  unaffected— which 
neither  moves  along  the  lines  of  ordinary  birth  nor  is  connected  with  it. 

8.  The  suggestions  already  made  serve  to  explain  the  words  of  Jesus  in 
the  tenth  verse.  The  object  of  what  precedes  having  been  to  set  forth  the 
spiritual  nature  of  the  kingdom,  the  expression  of  astonishment  follows, 
that  one  whose  office  it  was,  as  teacher  of  Israel,  to  comprehend  the  Old 
Testament  in  its  deepest  meaning,  should  be  so  unable  to  grasp  the 
spiritual  idea- 


534  ADDITIONAL   NOTES   BY   THE   AMERICAN   EDITOR. 

XIII. 

1.  At  ver.  11,  Jesus  makes  a  step  in  advance  in  the  discourse,  and  now 
assumes  in  a  more  formal  way  the  position  of  the  teacher  of  this  teacher. 
He  declares  to  him,  first  of  all,  that  He  is  qualified  to  make  known  to  him 
the  truth,  because  He  has  seen  and  knows ;  He  has,  what  no  human 
teacher  has,  the  heavenly  knowledge  (vv.  11, 13).  But  Nicodemus,  through 
dwelling  in  the  psychical  rather  than  the  spiritual  region,  is  not  ready  to 
receive  and  believe  that  which  is  to  be  communicated.  2.  This  want  of 
belief  on  the  part  of  Nicodemus  does  not  seem  to  be  referred  by  Jesus 
directly  to  sin  or  the  siuful  will,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Jews  afterwards,  but 
to  the  fact  that  his  thoughts  are  wholly  in  the  outward  and  visible,  as  in- 
dicated by  his  questions  respecting  the  new  birth.  The  conversation 
apparently  is  designed  to  be  an  educating  one  to  the  end  of  faith,  and  so 
there  is  no  sharp  rebuke,  but  only  the  effort  to  bring  him  to  see  the  need 
of  entering  into  a  higher  sphere.  3.  The  earthly  things  must  refer  to  the 
new  birth,  because  this  is  the  only  matter  Avhich  had  been  spoken  of 
(elnov,  ver.  12).  The  spiritual  change,  though  having  its  origin  and  origin- 
ating force  in  heaven  (avuOn;  en  mv  irvev/uaror),  is  yet  accomplished  on  earth. 
It  is,  indeed,  the  earthly  work  of  the  new  kingdom.  The  Z,ufi  aluvtog  opens 
and  begins  here.  This  was  the  fundamental  thing  to  be  presented  in 
answer  to  the  question  with  which  we  may  believe  the  conversation  to  have 
been  commenced.  If  this  could  not  be  understood,  what  possibility  could 
there  be  of  understanding  the  things  which  were  beyond  this — the  heav- 
enly things  ?  4.  The  heavenly  things  must,  undoubtedly,  be  indicated  in  the 
words  of  this  conversation — otherwise  there  would  be  little  significance  in 
mentioning  them.  If,  however,  they  are  thus  indicated,  they  must  be 
found  in  what  'follows,  and  must,  apparently,  be  centered  in  the  mission 
and  crucifixion  of  the  Son  of  man  to  the  end  of  the  salvation  of  men. 
The  fundamental  fact  and  truth  of  the  Gospel — the  divine  provision  for 
bringing  men  to  eternal  life  through  believing  on  the  only-begotten  Son — 
cannot  be  understood  by  one  who  does  not  apprehend  the  necessity  of  the 
new  birth,  that  is,  by  one  who  does  not  know  that  the  kingdom  of  God  is 
a  kingdom  in  and  over  the  soul,  not  to  be  entered  by  belonging  to  a  par- 
ticular nation.  The  necessity  of  the  new  birth  may  be  realized  on  earth 
and  the  new  birth  is  accomplished  on  earth,  but  the  great  divine  plan, 
with  its  wide-reaching  relations,  which  involves  and  is  carried  out  by  means 
of  this  spiritual  regeneration,  'is  a  thing  belonging  to  heaven,  and  one  which 
must  be  revealed  by  the  Son,  who  descends  out  of  heaven  and  who  is  in 
heaven.  Ver.  13  holds,  in  the  thought  as  well  as  in  its  position,  the  inter- 
mediate place  between  ver.  12  and  ver.  14 :  ver.  12,  the  heavenly  things 
are  mentioned;  ver.  13,  the  Son  is  the  only  one  who  can  reveal  them; 
ver.  14,  what  they  are. 

XIV. 

The  passage  from  ver.  16  to  ver.  21  is  supposed  by  Westcott,  and  by 
Milligan  and  Moulton,  among  the  most  recent  writers  on  this  Gospel,  as 


CHAPTER   III.  535 

well  as  by  the  writers  whom  Godet  mentions,  to  contain  reflections  of  the 
evangelist  on  the  words  of  Jesus  already  spoken.  On  the  other  hand, 
Alford,  Keil  and  others  hold  that  these  are  the  words  of  Jesus.  The 
grounds  on  which  the  former  view  is  maintained  are  the  three  referred  to 
by  Godet,  and  one  or  two  others  which  may  be  closely  united  with  them. 
As  for  these  three,  it  must  be  admitted  that  they  are  deserving  of  serious 
consideration.  The  argument  from  the  past  tenses  cannot  be  pressed,  as 
it  might  be  in  some  other  writings,  for  the  tendency  towards  the  use  of 
the  aorist  instead  of  the  perfect  is  manifest  in  the  New  Testament,  and,  in 
this  case,  the  reference  in  vv.  16, 17  is  apparently  to  the  act  of  love  already 
accomplished,  and  besides,  the  ip>  of  ver.  19  may  be  intended  to  cover  a 
time  before  the  appearance  of  the  light,  as  well  as  the  time  of  or  after  that 
appearance.  The  argument  derived  from  fiovoyevfc,  to  which  other  pecu- 
liar expressions  are  added  by  Westcott,  such  as  do  the  truth,  is  the  only  one 
of  weight.  It  would  seem  not  improbable  that  John  may  have  taken  this 
word  from  Jesus,  but  the  use  of  it  by  Jesus  in  this  early  conversation  with 
Nicodemus  is  a  thing  hardly  to  have  been  expected.  Was  it  not  too  soon 
after  His  first  coming  forward  as  a  teacher,  and  was  it  not  unlikely  that 
He  would  have  employed  this  peculiar  term  for  the  first  time  in  a  conver- 
sation with  such  a  man  ?  The  argument  derived  from  the  fact  that  Nico- 
demus takes  no  longer  any  part  in  the  conversation  is  of  comparatively 
little  force,  because  at  ver.  14  Jesus  passes  from  the  earthly  to  the 
heavenly  things,  respecting  which  Nicodemus  might  naturally  have  been 
only  a  listener  to  what 'was  told  him.  The  connection  of  the  16th  verse 
with  what  precedes  by  for  is  possible  consistently  with  either  view,  but, 
considering  the  absence  of  any  statement  pointing  to  the  writer  as  giving 
his  own  thought,  it  favors  the  assigning  of  the  words  to  Jesus.  The 
natural  and  easy  progress  of  the  discourse,  if  they  are  thus  understood, 
and  the  appropriate  close  which  they  form  to  all  that  is  said,  together 
with  the  antecedent  probability  that  the  evangelist  would  not  so  abruptly 
join  his  own  words  to  those  of  Jesus,  are  the  arguments  which  bear  most 
strongly  against  those  already  mentioned.  The  only  instance  in  which  it 
may  be  regarded  as  clear  that  the  evangelist  in  any  such  way  weaves  his 
own  matter  into  the  narrative,  is  in  the  latter  part  of  ch.  xii.,  and  there  he 
only  gives  a  kind  of  summary,  at  the  close  of  Jesus'  public  work,  of  His 
teachings  and  their  results.  This,  however,  is  quite  a  different  thing  from 
an  immediate  joining  of  his  own  words  to  those  of  Jesus  as  if  they 
belonged  to  the  same  development  of  thought.  It  is  claimed,  indeed, 
that  the  writer  connects  his  own  reflections  with  the  words  of  John  the 
Baptist  at  the  end  of  this  chapter.  But  even  if  this  is  admitted,  it  will  be 
observed  (a)  that  ver.  31  is  not  so  closely  connected  with  ver.  30  as  ver.  16 
is  with  ver.  15  (ver.  16  opens  with  yap,  while  ver.  31  has  an  independent 
construction) ;  (b)  that  it  is  less  difficult  to  suppose  that  Jesus  used  the 
words  of  vv.  16-21,  than  that  John  the  Baptist  used  those  of  ver.  31  ff. ; 
and  (c)  that  the  writer  may  more  easily  be  supposed  to  have  been  ready  to 
supplement  what  John  snid  with  his  own  thoughts,  than  to  add  words  of 
his  own  to  what  Jesus  had  said.    It  may  be  added  (</)  that  by  thus  closely 


536  ADDITIONAL  NOTES  BY   THE  AMERICAN   EDITOR. 

joining  his  own  reflections  to  the  discourse  of  Jesus,  he  must  have  known 
that  he  was  not  unlikely  to  mislead  the  reader,  and  to  make  him  suppose 
that  Jesus  had  uttered  those  central  words  of  the  Gospel  (ver.  16),  which 
He  had  not  uttered.  Is  it  probable  that,  in  the  first  case  where  he  pre- 
sented Jesus'  own  testimony  in  words,  he  would  have  allowed  himself  to 
make  such  an  impression? — While  it  cannot  be  said,  therefore,  that  vv. 
16-21  are  certainly  not  the  words  of  John,  there  are  strong  grounds  to 
believe  that  they  are  not,  and  the  probability  of  the  case  must  be  regarded 
as  favoring  the  assigning  them  to  Jesus. 

In  the  verses  of  this  discourse  with  Nicodemus  we  meet,  for  the  first 
time  in  this  Gospel,  the  words  C,wtj  aluviog.  The  careful  examination  of 
the  use  of  this  phrase  by  this  author  will  make  the  following  points  man- 
ifest : — (a)  The  phrase  Cw  aluviog  is  used  as  substantially  equivalent  to 
fwy.  For  example,  when  Jesus  says  v.  24:  He  that  bclieveth  hath  eternal  life, 
and  in  v.  40 :  that  ye  may  have  life,  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  fay  of  the 
latter  case  is  the  Cw?)  aiMviog  of  the  former. — (6)  The  Cw^  aluviog,  according 
to  John's  idea,  is  possessed  by  the  believer  as  soon  as  he  believes  ;  comp. 
iii.  36,  v.  24,  vi. 54.  He  that  believeth  hath  eternal  life;  he  that  eateth  my 
flesh  hath  eternal  life.  It  is  a  thing  of  the  present,  therefore,  and  not 
merely  of  the  future. — (c)  That  eternal  life  is  thus  present,  is  indicated  by 
the  explanation  given  by  Jesus  as  to  what  it  is,  xvii.  3  :  This  is  eternal  life 
to  know  thee,  the  only  true  God  and  Jesus  Christ  whom  thou  hast  sent.  The 
knowledge  of  God  is  eternal  life,  and  this  knowledge  the  believer  has  in 
this  world  (comp.  1  John  ii.  13 :  because  ye  know  the  Father,  v.  20 :  we 
know  him  that  is  true). — (d)  The  eternal  life  also  belongs  to  the  future ; 
comp.  vi.  27,  the  meat  which  abideth  unto  eternal  life ;  xii.  25,  he  that 
hateth  his  life  in  this  world  shall  keep  it  unto  eternal  life;  iv.  36,  gathereth 
fruit  unto  eternal  life ;  v.  29,  the  resurrection  of  life. — (e)  Eternal  life, 
viewed  with  reference  to  the  future,  is  connected  in  thought  with  expres- 
sions containing  the  phrase  elg  tov  aluva  ;  comp.  vi.  51,  If  any  man  eat  of 
this  bread,  he  shall  live  forever  and  the  bread  is  my  flesh ;  vi.  54,  he  that 
eateth  my  flesh  hath  eternal  life ;  vi.  58,  not  as  the  fathers  did  eat  and 
died,  he  that  eateth  this  bread  shall  live  forever.  The  conclusion  which  we 
may  draw  from  these  facts  is,  that,  to  the  view  of  this  author,  eternal 
life  is  rather  a  permanent  possession  of  the  soul  than  a  future  reward ; 
that  it  begins  with  the  new  birth,  and  continues  ever  afterwards,  as  well 
in  this  world  as  in  the  world  to  come ;  that  it  moves  onward  uninterrupt- 
edly, so  that  there  is  no  sight  or  taste  of  death,  viii.  51-52.  In  this  sense, 
the  adjective  is  qualitative,  rather  than  quantitative — eternal  life  is  a 
peculiar  kind  of  life.  But  when  we  ask  why  this  particular  qualitative 
word  is  used  to  describe  the  life,  the  suggestions  of  this  Gospel  lead  us  to 
believe  that  it  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  life  endures  fi?  rbv  aluva — that  it 
never  has  any  experience  of  death — that  it  is  endless.  The  qualitative 
word  is  thus  also  a  quantitative  one,  and  is  used  because  it  is  quantitative. 
The  endless  life  begins  on  earth. 

The  word  judgment,  in  these  verses,  is  possibly  to  be  interpreted,  with 
Meyer  and  others,  in  the  sense  of  condemnation  (naraitpiGis),  and  possibly, 


CHAPTER   HI.  537 

with  Godet  and  others,  in  its  own  proper  sense.  It  is  not  to  be  doubted 
that,  though  Koimg  means  judgment,  it  sometimes  has  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment the  idea  of  condemnatory  judgment  carried  into  it  by  the  force  of 
the  context  or  of  the  subject  under  discussion.  This  is  true  of  the  word 
judgment  in  our  language.  That  this  is  the  meaning  of  icpioie  in  these  verses 
is  indicated  by  the  contrast  with  the  word  save  ;  by  the  contrast  between 
believers  and  unbelievers,  so  far  as  the  general  representation  of  the  New 
Testament  writers  sets  forth  their  fate ;  by  the  fact  that  ver.  19  naturally 
suggests  the  idea  of  condemnatory  judgment;  and  by  the  references  to 
the  final  judgment  as  including  all  men,  which  are  found  elsewhere. 
The  other  view  is  favored  by  the  fact  that  neither  here  nor  in  ch.  v.  2-4 
ff.,  is  the  word  KaraKpiaig  used.  This  word  is,  however,  found  only  twice  in 
the  New  Testament  (2  Cor.  iii.  9,  vii.  8).  Karanpivcj  does  not  occur  in 
John's  Gospel,  except  in  the  doubtful  passage,  viii.  1-11.  It  is  to  be 
observed,  also,  that  the  tendency  of  the  Johannean  thought  is  towards 
the  inward  sphere,  rather  than  the  outward ;  and  as  his  conception  of 
eternal  life  is  not  of  the  future  reward  or  blessedness,  so  much  as  of  the 
spiritual  life  in  the  soul,  never  seeing  death,  so  it  would  seem  natural  that 
his  idea  of  the  relation  of  the  believer  to  judgment  should  be  that  of 
having  its  issues  already  decided  in  the  soul  by  the  possession  of  faith, 
and  thus  of  escaping  judgment  in  its  more  outward  form.  While  recog- 
nizing the  force  of  the  considerations  in  favor  of  giving  to  Kptatg  the  idea 
of  judgment  as  distinguished  from  condemnation,  the  writer  of  this  note 
believes  that  the  other  view  is  more  probably  the  correct  one.  Viewed 
in  relation  to  the  decision  as  to  destiny,  the  believer  as  truly  as  the  unbe- 
liever, it  would  seem,  must  be  subject  to  this  decision.  In  both  cases 
alike,  it  is  made,  in  the  sense  here  intended,  in  the  man  himself.  It  is 
made  already  in  each  case,  and  no  more  in  the  one  than  in  the  other. 
But  if  the  meaning  is  condemnation,  it  is  true  that  the  believer  is  not 
condemned,  and  that  the  unbeliever  has  been  condemned  already  by  and 
because  of  his  unbelief.  The  19th  verse  supports  this  meaning,  for  it 
represents  the  npioig  as  being  that  which  is  connected  only  with  the  rejec- 
tion of  the  light,  with  the  loving  of  darkness,  and  with  the  deeds  which 
are  evil  and  are  to  be  reproved  (ver.  20).  But  the  npimg  which  relates  to 
such  works  and  the  men  who  do  them  is  a  condemnatory  judgment. 

XV. 

Qn  verses  22-30  we  may  remark  :  1.  The  object  of  the  passage  is,  evi- 
dently, to  introduce  a  final  and  impressive  testimony  of  John  the  Baptist 
to  Jesus.  The  insertion  of  this  testimony  indicates  the  importance 
which  the  writer  gives,  in  his  own  mind,  to  John  as  a  witness.  It  is 
most  simply  and  easily  explained,  if  we  suppose  that  the  writer  was  the 
unnamed  disciple  and  had  gained  from  John  the  first  and  strong  impulse 
towards  the  life  of  faith.  The  emphasis  laid  upon  this  testimony  and 
that  in  i.  19-35  will  partly,  if  not  wholly,  account  for  the  prominence  given 
to  John, in  the  Prologue.     We  may  well  believe  that  these  words  of  their 


538  ADDITIONAL   NOTES   BY   THE   AMERICAN   EDITOR. 

old  master  or  friend,  being  brought  to  their  knowledge,  strengthened 
greatly  the  belief  of  the  five  or  six  original  disciples.  2.  The  statement 
of  the  2-tth  verse  may  be  intended  to  correct  a  wrong  impression,  which 
readers  of  the  Synoptics  might  derive  from  them  as  to  the  relation  in 
time  between  the  imprisonment  of  John  and  the  beginning  of  Jesus'  pub- 
lic ministry.  But,  whether  this  be  so  or  not,  this  statement  shows  that 
the  portion  of  Jesus'  life  which  is  recorded  in  these  first  chapters  antedates 
the  Synoptic  account  of  His  public  work.  3.  The  words  of  ver.  27  are  best 
taken  as  conveying  a  general  truth,  which  in  the  present  instance  finds  its 
application  to  both  of  the  persons  compared.  That  they  have  a  reference 
to  John  himself  is  indicated  by  the  close  connection  with  ver.  28,  where 
he  denies  and  affirms  only  with  respect  to  his  own  office,  and  with  ver. 
26,  in  which  his  disciples' call  upon  him,  as  it  were,  to  claim  superiority 
to  the  new  prophet,  or  at  least  equality  with  him.  His  answer  to  the 
complaint  and  implied  demand  of  these  disciples  is,  that  he  is  content 
with  the  position  and  work  assigned  to  him  by  God.  He  takes  joyfully 
what  God  has  given  him,  though  it  even  involves  a  decreasing  and  passing 
away  before  the  higher  glory  of  Christ.  But  the  words  also  refer,  in  his  use 
of  them,  to  Jesus,  for  it  was  the  application  to  Him  which  was  calculated 
especially  to  bring  his  disciples  to  a  state  of  contentment  with  the  pre- 
sent and  prospective  condition  of  things.  He  must  increase,  because  He 
is  the  Christ.  4.  These  verses  respecting  John,  though  representing  an 
incident  in  the  country  region  of  Judea  after  the  close  of  the  Passover 
feast,  are  so  nearly  connected  with  the  first  visit  to  Jerusalem,  that  they 
may  be  regarded  as  belonging,  in  the  author's  arrangement  of  testi- 
mony, with  what  occurred  at  that  time.  If  we  view  the  matter  in  this 
light,  we  find  that  the  disciples  had  now  received  the  cyfielov  consisting  in 
a  wonderful  miracle,  the  a^elov  in  the  strict  sense,  and,  in  addition  to  this, 
the  proofs  or  aijuzla  given  by  the  remarkable  act  of  the  prophet,  by  the 
great  prophetic  declaration  respecting  the  temple,  which  offered  food  for 
thought  even  until  His  resurrection  made  its  meaning  clear,  and  by  the 
words  addressed  to  Nicodemus,  which  spoke  to  them  both  of  the  earthly  and 
the  heavenly  things  connected  with  the  kingdom  of  God,  the  knowledge 
of  which  on  His  part  showed  that  He  had  descended  from  heaven.  Fol- 
lowing upon  all  this,  they  had  heard  a  last  word  from  John,  which  an- 
swered, as  it  were,  to  the  first  suggestion  which  had  pointed  them  to  Jesus. 
He  had  said  to  them  at  the  beginning,  that  he  was  not  the  Christ  but  only 
the  forerunner,  and  had  bidden  them  go  and  see  the  greater  one  for  whom 
he  was  preparing  the  way.  In  the  words  addressed  to  his  own  followers, 
he  now  says  to  these  former  followers  also,  that  his  joy  as  the  friend 
of  the  bridegroom  is  full,  and  that,  while  his  work  is  closing,  the  one  to 
whom  they  have  joined  themselves  is  to  increase  and  to  establish  the  king- 
dom. The  presentation  on  the  part  of  the  author  of  this  testimony  in 
these  different  lines  and  the  selection  of  these  narratives  which  contain 
them  are  manifestly  in  accordance  with  an  intelligent  plan.  But  the  plan 
is  of  just  that  character  which  attaches  itself  to,  and  finds  its  foundation 
in,  the  remembered  experience  and  development  of  the  inner  life. 


CHAPTER   III.  539 


XVI. 

With  respect  to  the  question  whether  vv.  31-36  are  a  portion  of  the  dis- 
course of  John  the  Baptist  to  his  disciples,  or  whether,  on  the  other  hand, 
they  are  added  by  the  evangelist,  two  suggestions  may  be  offered  :  1.  In 
a  certain  sense,  these  verses  form  the  conclusion  of  one  section  of  the 
book.  The  testimonies  which  came  to  the  disciples  at  the  beginning  of 
their  course  and  in  connection  with  the  time  of  the  first  Passover,  and 
which  are  apparently  arranged  with  special  care  by  the  author,  here  come 
to  their  end.  That  at  such  a  point  the  writer  should  allow  himself  to 
pass  from  the  history  into  reflections  of  his  own,  would  be  less  surprising 
than  it  would  be  elsewhere.  The  passage  might  be  regarded  in  this  re- 
spect, as  having  somewhat  of  the  same  position  as  the  summary  passage 
at  the  end  of  ch.  xii.  The  case  is  different  with  vv.  16-21.  2.  The  diffi- 
culties in  supposing  John  the  Baptist  to  have  used  expressions  such  as  we 
find  in  these  verses  are  much  greater  than  those  which  are  alleged,  in  vv. 
16  ff.,  as  bearing  against  our  understanding  that  the  words  there  used 
were  spoken  by  Jesus.  It  will  not  follow,  therefore, — even  if  we  hold  that 
the  evangelist  gives  his  own  thoughts  and  words  in  vv.  31-36, — that  he  does 
the  same  thing  also  in  vv.  16-21. 

The  considerations  which  favor  the  view  that  vv.  31  ff.  are  the  words  of 
the  evangelist  are  the  following:  (a)  The  greater  appropriateness  of  the 
thoughts  to  the  time  of  the  evangelist's  writing,  than  to  that  of  the  Bap- 
tist's speaking.  The  thoughts,  it  is  claimed,  are  beyond  what  the  Baptist 
could  have  had.  (b)  The  phraseology  is  that  of  the  writer  of  the  Gospel, 
and  not  in  accordance  with  what  we  know  of  John  the  Baptist.  On  the 
other  hand,  this  view  is  opposed  by  the  very  close  connection  of  these 
verses  with  those  which  precede,  27-30 ;  and  by  the  fact,  as  it  is  claimed, 
that  there  is  a  marked  consecutiveness  and  coherence  in  the  whole  pas- . 
sage  viewed  as  one  discourse.  Godet  affirms  that  all  the  details  of  the 
discourse  are  in  harmony  with  the  character  of  John  the  Baptist.  It  can 
hardly  be  denied,  however,  that  we  seem  to  pass  into  a  new  form  of  ex- 
pression, as  we  move  from  ver.  30  to  ver.  31,  and  that  in  the  latter  verse 
we  seem  to  be  in  the  atmosphere  of  the  evangelist's  language.  Moreover, 
ver.  32a  is  strikingly  like  ver.  11,  and  vv.  34-36  bear  the  stamp  of  expres- 
sions of  Jesus  which  were  used  at  a  later  time.  The  words  of  ver.  32b, 
on  the  other  hand,  are  truer  to  the  standpoint  of  John  the  Baptist,  than 
to  that  of  the  writer  near  the  end  of  the  apostolic  age.  Perhaps  the  most 
correct  view  of  the  passage  may  be,  that  it  is  a  report  of  what  John  the 
Baptist  said,  but  that,  under  the  influence  of  his  own  thoughts  of  Jesus' 
work  and  exaltation,  and  especially  of  what  He  had  set  forth  in  His  con- 
versation with  Nicodemus  in  the  earlier  part  of  the  chapter,  he  was  led  to 
express  the  Baptist's  thought  with  an  intermingling  of  his  own  language, 
or  even  with  some  intermingling  of  his  own  thought.  The  phenomena 
of  the  passage  which  point,  in  some  measure,  in  the  two  opposite  direc- 
tions, would  be  satisfactorily  met  by  such  a  supposition.  But  the  entire 
separation  of  these  verses  from  the  historical  occasion  referred  to  in  what 


540  ADDITIONAL   NOTES   BY  THE   AMERICAN   EDITOR. 

precedes  can  scarcely  be  admitted,  consistently  with  the  probabilities  of  the 
case. 

The  words  of  ver.  32b,  whether  used  by  the  Baptist  or  the  evangelist, 
must  be  understood  in  a  comparative,  not  in  an  absolute  sense — this  is 
proved  even  by  ver.  33.  There  is  no  serious  difficulty  in  any  apparent 
opposition  between  this  sentence  and  ver.  29  as  compared  with  ver.  26. 
Indeed,  the  difficulty  is  much  greater  in  case  the  words  are  supposed  to 
be  those  of  tbe  evangelist,  for  the  Gospel-message  had  had  wide  success 
before  he  wrote  this  book. 

The  word  ie<pfjdyiasv  of  ver.  33  seems  to  be  used  in  connection  with  the 
general  idea  of  the  inner  life  which  so  peculiarly  characterizes  this  chap- 
ter and  this  Gospel.  The  testimony  of  Christ  to  what  He  has  seen  and 
heard  is  the  witness  to  the  great  spiritual  truth — the  plan  of  God  for  sal- 
vation and  the  life  of  faith  (see  ver.  16).  The  man  who  receives  this  wit- 
ness, and  thus  believes,  gives  the  answering  confirmation  of  his  inward 
life  to  the  truth  of  God  in  this  which  is  witnessed.  He  sets  the  seal  of  his 
own  soul's  belief  to  the  words  of  Christ  as  the  words  of  God,  and  the  union 
of  the  soul  with  God  is  thus  accomplished  in  the  full  sense  of  the  word. 
He  who  does  not  receive  the  witness,  in  like  manner,  puts  himself  thereby 
apart  from  God  and  His  life.  Comp.  1  John  v.  10  ff. :  "  He  that  believeth 
not  God  hath  made  him  a  liar;  because  he  hath  not  believed  in  the  wit- 
ness that  God  hath  borne  concerning  His  Son.  And  the  witness  is  this, 
that  God  gave  unto  us  eternal  life,  and  this  life  is  in  His  Son.  He  that 
hath  the  Son  hath  the  life ;  he  that  hath  not  the  Son  of  God  hath  not  the 
life." 

The  last  clause  of  ver.  34,  if  the  reading  without  6  de6$  is  adopted,  is  in  a 
general  form,  and  the  precise  application  and  meaning  are  somewhat  un- 
certain. This  form  of  the  text  is  probably  the  correct  one.  We  must 
observe,  however,  that  the  clause  is  introduced  as  a  proof  of  the  preced- 
ing, that  is,  a  proof  of  the  proposition  that  he  whom  God  has  sent  speaks 
the  words  of  God.  The  natural  evidence  of  this  would  seem  to  be  that 
the  Spirit  is  given  to  Him  without  measure,  rather  than  that  the  gift  of 
the  Spirit,  when  this  great  gift  is  made  to  the  world  or  the  souls  of  be- 
lievers, is  an  unlimited  one,  or  that  the  Son  Himself  gives  the  Spirit  with- 
out limitation.  The  subject  of  the  verb  gives  is,  therefore,  probably  to  be 
supplied  from  6  8e6g  of  the  preceding  sentence,  and  not  from  the  subject 
of  XaleU  For  the  same  reason,  the  application  of  the  general  phrase  is  to 
the  Son,  although- there  is  no  avT$  in  the  sentence.  The  connection  with 
the  following  verse,  also,  serves  to  show  that  the  thought  is  of  the  Father 
as  giving  to  the  Son. 

XVII. 

If  the  words  of  vv.  31-36  are  words  of  the  evangelist  himself,  they  are 
most  naturally  to  be  taken  as  his  statement  of  the  truth  (as  he  saw  it  at 
the  time  of  writing),  which  was  involved  in  what  John  the  Baptist  had 
suggested  by  the  comparison  between  himself  and  Jesus  as  the  napavvfupioc 
and  the  vfy/^of,  and  by  the  words,  He  must  increase.    They  thus  indicate 


CHAPTER   III.  541 

what  he  himself  thought,  afterwards,  that  the  testimony  affirmed  when 
fully  apprehended  in  the  wide  reach  of  its  meaning.  If  they  are.,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  words  of  John  the  Baptist,  that  prophet  must  have  been 
granted  a  vision  of  the  exaltation  and  work  of  Christ  which  was  beyond 
that  of  his  time — a  thing  which,  considering  his  peculiar  office  in  relation 
to  the  Messiah,  would  not  seem  impossible.  John  w'as  not  only  the  great- 
est of  the  prophets  of  the  older  system,  he  was  the  last  of  the  prophets. 
He  was  the  one  who  handed  over  the  truth  of  the  Old  Testament  times, 
as  it  were,  to  the  New  Testament  times ;  the  one  who  pointed  to  Jesus  the 
earliest  disciples  of  the  new  system.  Why  may  it  not  have  been  granted 
to  him  to  see  what  Jesus  was,  to  know  that  He  possessed  the  Spirit  with- 
out measure,  and  to  understand  that  his  own  ministration  of  repentance 
was  to  be  supplemented  and  perfected  by  the  ministration  of  faith  ?  If 
Abraham,  with  whom  the  covenant  was  originally  made,  rejoiced  in  the 
foreseeing  of  the  day  of  Christ,  and  saw  it  with  rejoicing,  it  would  seem  by 
no  means  strange  that  John  the  Baptist  might  have  had  a  vision  which 
opened  to  him  more  than  others  saw — and  that  he  might  have  expressed 
what  it  brought  to  his  mind,  either  in  the  precise  words  which  we  find 
here,  or,  if  not  this,  in  words  which  could  be  filled  out  in  their  significance 
by  the  evangelist  while  yet  moving  in  the  sphere  of  his  thought. 

However  we  may  view  the  words,  they  suggest  an  inquiry  of  much  in- 
terest— namely,  how  far  may  we  believe  that  the  faith  of  the  disciples,  of 
whom  the  author  is  particularly  speaking,  had  advanced  at  this  time  ? 
They  had  had  before  them  manifestations  of  His  power,  His  zeal,  His  out- 
look on  the  future,  His  claim  to  have  descended  from  heaven,  His  insight 
into  the  nature  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  His  view  of  eternal  life  as  related 
to  faith,  and  finally  they  had  had  a  closing  testimony  of  John  the  Baptist 
which  was,  apparently,  more  full  and  emphatic  than  any  that  he  had 
given  them  at  the  beginning.  They  had  thus  seen  all  that  they  could 
hope  to  see,  so  far  as  the  different  kinds  of  evidence  were  concerned. 
But  we  cannot  suppose  that  their  belief  as  yet  answered  fully  to  the 
abundant  measure  of  testimony  which  had  been  given  them.  What  we 
are  told  in  the  Gospels  of  the  slowness  of  their  development  in  the  new 
life,  and  in  their  comprehension  of  its  teachings  and  mysteries,  is  alto- 
gether in  accord  with  what  we  should  expect  from  the  circumstances  in 
which  they  were.  The  strangeness  of  the  doctrine  of  the  spiritual  king- 
dom and  all  that  belonged  to  it,  and  the  ever-deepening  mystery  in  the 
character  of  Jesus,  as  He  spoke  to  them  of  Himself  and  of  the  eternal  life 
of  the  soul,  must  have  made  belief  seem  a  hard  thing  oftentimes.  They 
were  opening  in  their  life  to  a  completely  new  world.  Every  day,  every 
thought  almost,  brought  them  to  new  wonders.  How  could  the  inward 
life,  long  educated  under  the  Jewish  ideas,  and  with  the  controlling  influ- 
ence of  the  temporal  and  outward  view  of  the  kingdom,  keep  pace  in  its 
progress  with  the  evidences  which  were  set  before  them?  The  evidences 
might  come  rapidly — they  might  come  fully  ;  but  for  faith  to  grow  to  its 
fullness,  they  must  be  repeated  again  and  again,  they  must  work  their 
way  into  the  mind  gradually,  they  must  find  themselves  partially  under- 


512  ADDITIONAL   NOTES   BY   THE   AMERICAN   EDITOR. 

stood  at  one  moment,  but  partially  also  only  at  a  later,  and  perhaps  a 
much  later,  moment.  One  manifestation  of  power  or  insight  may  have 
made  them  believe  as  soon  as  it  was  given  ;  another  may  have  only  sug- 
gested questioning,  or  left  them  in  bewilderment,  until  the  great  fact  of 
the  resurrection  enlightened  all  the  way  which  led  onward  to  it. 

When,  however,  the  testimony  was  to  be  recorded,  years  after  the  his- 
tory was  ended,  it  was  necessary  that  it  should  be  given  in  the  words  in 
which  it  was  uttered,  and  of  course,  as  thus  given,  it  would  convey  to  the 
reader,  who  had  entered  into  a  deeper  understanding  of  the  Christian 
truth,  a  proportionally  deeper  and  clearer  meaning.  To  be  appreciated 
as  a  part  of  the  development  of  the  apostles'  belief,  it  must  be  viewed 
from  the  standpoint  of  the  time  in  their  progress  when  the  words  were 
uttered.  When  it  is  claimed  that  there  is  no  advance  of  thought  in  this 
Gospel,  that  we  reach  the  end  immediately  from  the  beginning,  etc.,  those 
who  make  the  criticism  may  be  called  upon  to  consider  the  author's  plan 
and  its  necessary  limitations.  He  does  not  propose  to  prove  his  doctrine 
— that  is,  the  great  truth  that  Jesus  is  the  incarnate  Logos — by  a  doctrinal 
course  of  argument,  as  if  in  a  treatise.  In  such  a  work,  he  might  have 
arranged  his  matter  altogether  at  his  own  will.  But  he  proves  by  a  bio- 
graphy, and  in  accordance  with  a  plan  which  involves  two  ideas :  testi- 
mony and  answering  belief.  He  must  select  and  arrange,  accordingly, 
within  the  limits  thus  imposed.  The  advance  indicated  in  a  book  of  this 
character  must  be  found  largely  in  the  growth  of  the  impression  of  the 
testimony,  rather  than  in  that  of  the  testimony  itself.  And  even  with  re- 
gard to  the  impression,  the  necessities  of  the  biographical  element  may 
prevent  the  presentation  of  a  steady  progress.  Life,  whether  external  or 
internal,  does  not  move  as  the  critical  mind  is  disposed  to  demand  that 
this  Gospel  should  move. 

Moreover,  as  to  the  presentation  of  ideas,  Jesus  had  before  Him,  on  the 
occasion  mentioned  in  the  beginning  of  this  third  chapter,  one  of  the 
leading  men  of  the  Jewish  nation,  a  man,  no  doubt,  of  intelligence  and 
learning — "the  teacher  of  Israel."  This  man  came  to  test  and  judge 
Him  as  a  professed  prophet,  and  to  ask  Him  with  reference  to  the  king- 
dom of  God.  How  can  we  suppose,  in  such  a  conversation,  that  there 
would  have  been  no  utterance  of  the  deeper  truths  of  the  new  teaching. 
That  the  occasion  was  near  the  beginning  of  the  public  ministry  is  a  mat- 
ter of  no  importance  here ;  the  presence  of  the  particular  man  was  the 
determining  point.  The  man's  condition  of  mind  and  spirit  called  for 
the  setting  forth  of  the  earthly  and  heavenly  things,  and  we  may  believe 
that  it  was  because  they  were  thus  brought  forward,  that  he  was  gained  as 
a  disciple,  as  he  might  not  have  been  by  another  kind  of  discourse. 
Another  listener,  or  body  of  listeners,  on  another  day,  might  have  called 
for  a  more  elementary  or  plainer  method  of  instruction.  But  that  other 
day  might  as  easily  have  been  a  year  later  than  this  one,  as  a  year  earlier. 
The  teaching  was  determined  by  the  opportunity,  not  the  opportunity  by 
the  teaching. 

We  may  also  look  at  the  matter  in  another  light.    If  we  conceive  of  the 


CHAPTER   IV.  543 

discourse  with  Nicodemus  as  intended  to  bear,  in  the  way  of  testimony, 
upon  the  minds  of  the  disciples,  or  even  upon  them  as  being  present  and 
hearing  it,  we  may  well  believe  that  Jesus  thought  it  fit  to  give  expression 
to  thoughts  which  they  could  not  yet  fully  comprehend,  but  which  might 
find  a  lodgment  in  their  minds  and  become  seed-thoughts  for  future 
growths.  Suggestive  and  always  asking  for  explanation,  such  words  as 
these  must  have  been,  first,  a  witness  for  them  to  some  deep  life  and 
power  in  Him  who  uttered  them ;  then,  matter  for  reflection  and  further 
inquiry ;  then,  as  something  of  a  similar  character  was  uttered  afterwards, 
a  help  towards  further  knowledge;  and  so  continually  a  means  of  opening 
the  mind  to  more  light  and  of  strengthening  the  heart  in  faith  with  every 
increase  of  knowledge. 

In  the  case  of  these  disciples,  who  were  to  be  the  intimate  companions 
of  His  life  and  afterwards  the  source  of  instruction  and  authority  in  the 
Church,  it  was  especially  important  that  such  seed-thoughts  should  be 
given  for  their  future  meditation,  and  this,  too,  at  an  early  time  in  their 
discipleship.  We  see,  in  this  Gospel,  how  much  higher  a  place  in  the 
sphere  of  testimony  is  given  by  Jesus  Himself  to  the  words  than  to  the 
works.  It  would  seem  that  it  must  have  been  so,  because  the  system 
itself  was  truth.  These  chief  ministers  of  the  truth  must,  therefore,  above 
all  others,  have  been  educated  by  the  words ;  and,  we  may  believe,  by 
words  which,  even  from  the  first,  called  them  to  higher  things  than  they 
were  able  at  the  moment  to  attain.  What  such  a  process  of  education 
made  of  the  Apostle  John,  we  can  see  in  his  writings,  and  surely,  if  it 
moved  forward  by  the  repetition  of  the  same  truths  oftentimes,  it  was  no 
education  without  progress.  The  progress,  however,  must  be  found  in  the 
testimony  and  the  faith  as  working  together. 

XVIII. 

Chapter  IV. 

With  reference  to  the  first  eighteen  verses  of  the  fourth  chapter,  the 
following  points  may  be  noticed :  1.  The  statement  of  ver.  1,  as  related  to 
the  narrative,  is  introduced  simply  as  accounting  for  the  occurrence  of  the 
incident  about  to  be  mentioned.  In  relation  to  the  plan  of  the  book,  how- 
ever, it  seems  to  belong  with  other  passages  in  which  the  writer  is  at  pains 
to  show  how  carefully  Jesus  avoided  all  things  which  might  hasten  the 
final  catastrophe  before  the  appointed  hour.  He  moved  in  all  His  life,  so 
the  writer  would  have  his  readers  understand,  with  reference  to  that  hour. 
2.  The  words  of  ver.  2,  which  are  a  correction  of  the  report  which  came 
to  the  Pharisees,  can  hardly  have  been  added  merely  for  this  purpose. 
There  must  have  been  an  intention  on  the  evangelist's  part  to  give  his 
readers  a  fact  of  some  consequence  in  itself  with  regard  to  the  work  of 
Jesus.  The  significance  of  the  fact  may  possibly  be  found  in  the  relation 
of  Jesus  to  John.  The  baptism  of  water  was  the  peculiarity  of  Jolm's 
office,  that  oe  the  Spirit  the  peculiarity  of  His  own.    In  introducing  the 


ADDITIONAL   NOTES   BY   THE   AMERICAN   EDITOR. 

new  system,  however,  it  was  natural  that  there  should  not  he  an  abrupt 
and  entire  breaking  oft"  of  the  old.  John  was  the  one  who  opened  the 
way,  and  the  union  of  what  followed  with  what  preceded  was  through  him. 
This  union,  in  connection  with  the  great  symbolic  act  of  baptism,  was 
most  naturally  manifested  by  the  continuance  of  what  John  had  done ; 
but  the  passing  away  of  the  old  and  the  entering  in  of  the  new,  was  sug- 
gested by  the  fact  that  Jesus  did  not  Himself  baptize  with  water,  but  only 
with  the  Spirit. 

3.  The  word  ovrug  of  ver.  6  is  to  be  understood,  with  Godet,  Meyer,  R. 
V.,  and  others,  as  equivalent  to  as  He  was,  without  ceremony.  4.  The 
sixth  hour  almost  certainly  means  noon  here,  the  reckoning  being  from 
six  in  the  morning,  the  beginning  of  the  Jewish  day.  This  method  of 
reckoning  is  quite  probably  the  uniform  one  in  this  Gospel,  but  it  is  not 
certainly  so  in  every  case.  In  the  matter  of  counting  the  hours  of  the 
day,  there  is  everywhere  a  tendency  to  vary,  at  different  times,  by  reason 
of  the  fact  that,  whatever  may  be  the  starting-point  of  customary  reckon- 
ing, the  daylight  hours  are  those  which  represent  the  period  of  activity 
and  of  events.  It  is  to  be  remembered,  also,  that  the  author  was  living 
in  another  region  from  that  in  which  the  events  recorded  had  taken 
place. 

5.  The  conversation  here  opens  very  naturally,  and  there  would  seem 
to  be  no  difficulty  in  supposing  that  Jesus  may  have  directly  answered 
the  remark  of  the  woman  with  the  words  of  ver.  10.  The  difference,  in 
this  regard,  between  this  case  and  that  of  Nicodemus  (iii.  2,  3),  is  notice- 
able; in  the  latter,  some  intervening  conversation  must  be  supposed. 
6.  The  living  water  of  which  Jesus  speaks  in  ver.  10  is  supposed  by  Godet 
to  be  the  eternal  life,  and  he  refers  to  vv.  13,  14,  as  showing  this  to  be  the 
correct  view.  The  words  of  those  verses,  however,  speak  of  this  water  as 
being  a  well  of  water  springing  up  into  eternal  life.  We  find  also,  in  the 
sixth  chapter,  that  the  living  bread  and  the  bread  of  life  are  presented  as 
that  which  is  the  means  and  support  of  life  in  the  believer.  It  would 
seem  more  probable,  therefore,  that,  in  this  expression,  that  which  forms 
the  basis  and  principle  of  the  new  life  is  referred  to,  than  the  new  life 
itself.  That  which  Jesus  gives  to  the  world — in  one  view,  grace  and  truth, 
in  another  view,  Himself  as  the  source  of  life — may  be  understood  as  that 
to  which  He  refers.  7.  The  word  eternal  life,  in  ver.  14,  is  placed  in  a  par- 
allelism with  a?  rbv  aluva,  and,  for  this  reason,  it  seems  hereto  be  carried 
forward  in  its  meaning  to  the  future.  The  thought  in  this  place  is  of  the 
future  and  final  blessedness,  as  well  as  of  the  present  inward  life,  and  the 
former  is  thrown  into  prominence,  as  the  contrast  is  intended  to  be  between 
the  passing  away  of  the  satisfaction  coming  from  the  earthly  source  and 
the  never-ending  blessing  of  the  life  in  union  with  Him. 

8.  The  turn  in  the  conversation  at  ver.  16  is  somewhat  difficult  to  ac- 
count for.  It  must  be  explained  in  connection  with  the  progress  of  the 
story,  and  hence  we  may  believe  that  it  has  reference  to  the  end  which 
Jesus  had  in  view  respecting  the  woman's  spiritual  life.  In  the  case  of 
iNicodemus,  He  met  one  of  the  leading  men  of  the  Jewish  nation,  who  had 


CHAPTER  rv.  515 

come  to  ask  Him  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God.  Nicodemus'  attention 
had  been  already  aroused  and  his  mind  had  moved  in  the  domain  of  this 
great  subject.  In  tbc  case  of  this  woman,  on  the  other  hand,  attention 
was  to  be  aroused,  and,  both  for  herself  and  the  people  of  her  city,  the 
wonder  of  His  personality  and  His  knowledge  must  be  brought  before  her 
mind.  For  tbis  reason,  partly  if  not  wholly,  it  may  be  supposed  that  He 
left  the  words  concerning  the  living  water  to  make  their  impression,  and 
turned  at  once  to  a  new  point  which  might  even  more  excite  her  aston- 
ishment and  stir  her  thought.  This  new  point,  also,  would  have  a  bear- 
ing upon  her  own  personal  life  and  awaken  her  moral  sense.  Godet 
thinks  that  Jesus  did  not  wish  to  act  upon  a  dependent  person  without 
the  presence  of  the  one  to  whom  she  was  bound.  The  objection  which 
Meyer  presents  is  conclusive — "  the  husband  was  nothing  more  than  a  par- 
amour." The  reply  which  Godet  makes,  that  the  prophetic  insight  may 
not  have  been  awakened  in  Jesus  with  regard  to  her  antecedents  until 
He  heard  her  reply,  "  I  have  no  husband,"  is,  as  Meyer  remarks,  "  a  quite 
gratuitous  assumption,"  and,  it  may  be  added,  one  which  contradicts  all 
the  probabilities  of  the  case.  The  commentators  have  pursued  this 
woman  and  her  five  husbands  relentlessly,  some  of  them  even  making  all 
of  the  five,  like  the  sixth,  not  her  husbands,  and  some  thinking  of  separa- 
tion by  divorce  from  some  of  them  or  that  she  had  been  unfaithful  and  for- 
saken them.  But  there  is  no  foundation  for  suppositions  of  this  character, 
as  there  is  generally  none  for  similar  conjectures  of  one  kind  or  another 
which,  in  other  cases,  a  certain  class  of  writers  on  the  Old  and  New  Tes- 
taments are  disposed  to  make.  Even  Meyer,  who  holds  that  the  five  hus- 
bands had  been  lawfully  married  to  her,  says  such  a  history  had  already 
seared  her  conscience,  and  appeals  to  ver.  29  as  proof  of  this.  He  is 
obliged  to  add,  however,  "  how?  is  not  stated."  Ver.  29  says  nothing  about 
her  conscience ;  it  says  only  that  she  saw  that  Jesus  knew  the  facts  of  her 
past  history.    It  was  His  knowledge  that  impressed  her. 

XIX. 

The  evident  sincerity  and  earnestness  of  the  woman  in  what  follows 
may  lead  us  to  believe,  that,  in  the  words  which  are  given  in  ver,  20,  she 
did  not  intend  merely  to  turn  the  conversation  from  an  unpleasant  sub- 
ject. Whether  she  was  yet  awakened  to  desire  instruction  in  righteous- 
ness from  Jesus  or  not,  she  no  doubt  put  the  question  with  an  honest 
purpose.  The  explanation  given  by  Godet  here  is  the  more  natural  one, 
as  compared  with  those  of  the  writers  who  go  to  either  extreme  of  inter- 
pretation which  he  mentions.  In  the  reply  of  Jesus,  the  following  points 
may  be  noticed: — 1.  The  development  of  the  thought  here  is,  as  it  is  in 
the  interview  with  Nieodemus,  determined  by  the  state  of  mind  of  the 
person  with  whom  Jesus  was  speaking,  and  by  the  circumstances  of  the 
conversation.  At  the  same  time,  the  conversation  moves  toward  a  final 
result  which  involves  an  important  testimony,  and  in  connection  with 
this  fact  the  story  finds  its  place  among  these  narratives  which  are  selected 
35 


546  ADDITIONAL   NOTES   BY  THE   AMERICAN   EDITOR. 

by  the  author  for  purposes  of  proof,  and  as  giving  actual  proofs  which 
were  brought  before  the  minds  of  the  disciples.  The  great  truth  of  the 
spirituality  of  religion  is  brought  out  here,  as  it  is  in  what  was  said  to 
Nicodemus.  But  here  it  is  suggested  in  connection  with  the  matter  of 
worship,  instead  of  the  entrance  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  because  this 
was  the  question  which  occupied  the  mind  of  the  one  with  whom  Jesus 
was  now  speaking.  If,  however,  God  is  a  Spirit  and  true  worship  must 
therefore  be  spiritual,  it  naturally  follows,  for  the  mind  that  moves  far 
enough  to  comprehend  the  truth,  that  the  life  in  union  with  God  must  be 
entered  by  a  new  birth  of  the  Spirit.  But  there  is  something  further  here : 
namely,  a  distinct  declaration  of  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus.  This  had  not 
been  stated  in  terms  to  Nicodemus,  or  in  the  scenes  at  the  first  Passover, 
or  at  the  wedding-feast  at  Cana.  In  the  matter  of  testimony  it  was  an 
addition  to  all  that  preceded — the  word  from  Jesus  Himself  saying:  I  am 
the  Christ.  He  had  said  what  might  imply  as  much  in  His  words  to 
Nicodemus.  He  had  suggested  the  thought  by  His  reference  to  rebuilding 
the  temple,  and  had  given  evidence  of  Messianic  power  in  the  first  miracle. 
But  now  He  declares  it  in  a  sentence  which  can  have  but  one  meaning. 
On  His  return,  therefore,  from  Jerusalem  towards  Galilee  after  the  first 
Passover,  the  last  element  in  the  testimony  is  presented  to  the  disciples — 
through  this  chance  conversation,  as  it  seemed,  in  a  Samaritan  town — 
which  may  lead  them  to  be  confirmed  in  their  belief  that  Jesus  is  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God. 

The  reason  why  this  declaration  was  made  to  this  Samaritan  woman, 
and  not  publicly  in  Jerusalem,  is  explained,  on  the  one  hand,  by  the  fact 
already  alluded  to — that  the  "  hour  "  of  Jesus  was  the  directing-power  of 
His  life  in  relation  to  the  entire  matter  of  His  manifestation  of  Himself, 
and,  on  the  other,  by  the  retirement  and  remoteness  from  the  central  life 
at  Jerusalem  of  this  town  in  Samaria.  But  for  the  inner  life  of  the  disci- 
ples it  mattered  little  where  the  testimony  was  presented  to  their  minds, 
while  in  the  due  order  of  impression  its  place  was  necessarily  and  properly 
after  the  testimonies  mentioned  in  the  earlier  chapters.  The  declaration 
now  given  at  the  end  would  naturally  throw  its  influence  back,  as  they 
thought  of  it,  upon  all  which  had  been  heard  or  seen  before,  and  would 
become  a  guiding  and  illuminating  power  in  their  reflections  on  what  had 
occurred,  and  also  on  what  they  might  find  occurring  in  the  future.  We 
may  see  clearly,  therefore,  how  the  writer  follows,  in  the  insertion  of  this 
chapter,  as  truly  as  before,  an  intelligent  plan. 

XX. 

With  reference  to  particular  points  in  vv.  21-26  the  following  sugges- 
tions may  be  offered : — 1.  In  the  words  of  ver.  21  we  may  see  from  the 
outset  that  Jesus'  desire  was  to  draw  attention  to  the  spirituality  of 
worship,  and  it  is  not  improbable  that,  as  the  account  of  the  conversation 
was  given  to  the  disciples,  it  was  His  design  to  turn  their  thoughts  also 
away  from  the  ideas  of  place,  which  belonged  to  their  former  education, 


CHAPTER   IV.  547 

and  to  show  them,  at  this  early  stage  of  their  new  life,  the  great  difference 
between  the  new  and  the  old. — 2.  The  distinction  made  between  the  Jews 
and  the  Samaritans  in  ver.  22  is  apparently  to  be  determined  as  to  its 
precise  meaning  by  the  last  clause  of  the  verse.  It  was  because  salvation 
was  from  the  Jews,  that  it  could  be  affirmed  that  they  worshiped  that 
which  they  knew  and  the  Samaritans,  that  which  they  knew  not.  The 
latter  did  not  stand  on  the  same  ground  with  the  heathen  nations.  They 
were  not  entirely  without  the  knowledge  of  the  only  true  God.  But  they 
were  not  in  the  line  of  the  Divine  education  under  the  Old  Covenant, 
they  did  not  receive  the  full  revelation  which  had  been  made,  and  they 
were  not  the  nation  in  the  midst  of  whom  appeared  the  Christ — to  know 
whom,  as  well  as  the  true  God,  is  the  eternal  life.  They  were  moving 
apart  from  the  light,  rather  than  in  the  light. — 3.  The  true  worship  is 
evidently  set  in  opposition  to  that  of  place,  and  thus  to  the  ideas  of  both 
parties.  But  the  added  words  show  that  Jesus  in  His  thought  goes  be- 
yond this  mere  opposition,  and  enters  into  the  idea  of  spiritual  worship  as 
considered  in  itself.  The  foundation  of  it  is  the  fact  that  God  is  a  spirit. 
He  therefore  seeks  as  His  worshipers  those  who  worship  in  that  sphere 
where  He  Himself  dwells.  The  nvev/ia  is  the  part  of  man  which  is 
kindred  in  its  nature  to  God,  and  which  is  capable  of  real  fellowship  and 
communion  with  God.  It  is  that  part  of  man  into  which  the  Divine 
Spirit  enters  by  His  influence  and  power.  The  only  full  communion 
with  God,  therefore,  must  be  in  the  irvev/ia.  But  as  the  irvtvfia  of  man  is 
in  and  with  him  wherever  he  may  be,  he  must  be,  as  a  worshiper,  inde- 
pendent of  place,  so  soon  as  he  understands  the  true  sphere  and  nature  of 
worship.  The  addition  of  the  word  akifiua  must  also  be  explained,  it 
would  seem,  by  the  contrast  with  the  idea  of  place.  It  cannot,  for  this 
reason,  as  well  as  for  those  given  by  Godet  and  Meyer  (that  the  Jew  or 
Samaritan  could  offer  a  sincere  prayer,  and  that  it  follows  so  soon  after 
alr]6aoi),  have  the  meaning  in  sincerity.  Doubtless,  it  partakes  of  the 
signification  of  hlrfitvoi  in  this  place,  and  means  truth  as  answering  to  the 
true  idea. — 4.  Godet  supposes  that  John  may  have  been  present  with 
Jesus  and  thus  have  heard  this  conversation.  This  is  not  impossible, 
though  the  impression  of  the  narrative  is  that  all  the  disciples  had  left 
Him  for  the  time.  That  Jesus  should  have  repeated  the  substance  of  the 
conversation  to  them  soon  afterwards,  would  seem  very  natural.  It  was 
an  interview  so  remarkable  in  its  results,  indeed,  that  the  disciples  could 
hardly  have  failed  to  question  Him  particularly  concerning  it,  and  the 
truth  which  He  had  expressed  was  so  adapted  to  the  needs  of  their  minds 
that  He  could  not  but  have  desired  to  bring  it  before  them.  There  is, 
therefore,  no  difficulty  in  the  fact  that  John  is  able  to  report  the  conversa- 
tion, even  if  he  was  not  an  ear-witness  of  it. 

XXI. 

The  following  points  in  vv.  27-38  may  be  noticed:— 1.  The  impression 
produced  upon  the  mind  of  the  woman  was  that  which  came  from  the 


548  ADDITIONAL   NOTES  BY  THE  AMERICAN   EDITOR. 

wonderful  knowledge  of  Jesus  respecting  herself,  that  is,  her  past  history. 
That  upon  Nicodemus,  which  led  him  to  go  to  Jesus,  came  from  the 
miracles.  The  influence  which  induced  him  to  become  a  disciple,  if 
indeed  he  became  one  in  consequence  of  that  first  interview,  was  derived 
from  the  truth  which  he  heard  respecting  the  kingdom  of  God.  The 
woman,  though  her  past  life  differed  from  that  of  Nathanael,  seems  to 
have  been  affected  by  the  same  manifestation  of  unexpected  knowledge  or 
insight.  That  she  should  have  personally  met  the  Christ,  seems  almost 
impossible  to  her  mind — that  one  who  had  exhibited  such  knowledge 
might  perchance  be  the  Christ,  she  could  not  but  believe.  This  divided 
state  of  mind,  as  between  the  possibility  and  the  impossibility,  is  expressed 
by  the  form  of  her  question  C"?™)  addressed  to  the  people  of  her  city. — 
2.  The  words  addressed  by  Jesus  to  the  disciples  in  vv.  32,  34  do  not  seem 
to  belong  immediately  to  the  testimony  contained  in  this  chapter,  but 
they  must  have  offered  the  disciples  matter  for  reflection  in  respect  to  His 
mission.  Vv.  35  ff.,  on  the  other  hand,  called  their  thought  to  their  own 
mission  as  related  to  His.  The  interpretation  of  these  last  verses  must 
take  into  account  the  fact  that  what  is  said  is  evidently  suggested  by  the 
circumstances  of  the  present  scene,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  fact  of 
the  general  form  of  the  statement.  We  may  believe,  therefore,  that,  just 
as  the  remark  of  the  disciples  about  eating  led  Jesus  to  say  what  is 
recorded  in  ver.  34, — a  word  which  teaches  them  of  His  relation  to  the 
Father, — so  here,  the  sight  of  the  people  who  were  approaching  gives 
Him  a  vision  of  the  future  and  wide-extended  work  of  the  Gospel,  as  the 
disciples  were  to  carry  it  forward.  The  general  truth,  in  each  case,  is 
illustrated  by  Avhat  is  taking  place  at  the  hour  of  their  conversation.  As 
related  to  the  present  scene,  the  disciples  have  returned  in  season  to  see  the 
approaching  p'eople  who  are  ready  to  believe,  and  perhaps  to  have  part  in 
receiving  them  as  believers  ;  but  the  work  of  sowing  has  been  already  done 
by  Jesus.  He  has  prepared  for  the  result.  And  the  ordering  of  the 
Divine  plan  in  this  way  is,  that  they  may  share  together  in  the  rejoicing. 
This  is  a  picture  and  representation  of  the  future.  So  it  will  be  in  all 
their  work;  they  will  enter  into  the  labors  of  others,  and, at  the  end,  both 
sowers  and  reapers  will  rejoice.  So  far  as  concerns  the  present  scene,  the 
sower  is,  undoubtedly,  Jesus ;  but,  as  the  words  extend  in  their  meaning 
and  application  over  all  the  ministry  of  the  disciples,  the  sowers  may  be  all 
who  have  gone  before  them  in  the  work  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  This 
twofold  and  enlarged  application  of  the  passage  answers,  apparently,  all 
the  demands  of  the  several  verses. — 3.  The  word  vfy  is  probably  to  be 
connected  with  ver.  35,  although  there  is  no  serious  difficulty  in  joining  it, 
as  Godet  does,  with  the  following  verse. — i.  The  phrase  C«>)  aluviog  in  ver. 
36  seems  to  be  clearly  used  in  the  sense  which  is  common  in  other 
writings  of  the  New  Testament,  but  not  so  in  John — that  is,  as  referring 
wholly  to  the  future  life. 


CHAPTER   IV.  549 


XXII. 


1.  The  repetition  of  the  statement  of  ver.  29  in  ver.  39  is  confirmatory 
of  the  view  given  in  the  preceding  note  of  the  character  and  source  of  the 
impression  produced  on  the  woman's  mind.  The  "  many  "  alluded  to  in 
ver.  41  believed  because  of  His  word.  We  have,  accordingly,  in  this  whole 
section  from  iii.  1  to  iv.  42,  cases  of  persons  who  had  their  faith  awakened 
by  personal  communication  with  Jesus  and  by  listening  to  what  He  said. 
2.  The  expression  referring  to  the  matter  of  belief  which  is  peculiar  to 
this  case  of  the  many,  is  that  they  said  they  knew  this  man  to  be  the 
Saviour  of  the  world.  The  testimony  of  Jesus,  as  thus  indicated,  was  to  the 
end  of  the  universality  of  His  work.  Weiss,  in  his  edition  of  Meyer's 
Commentary,  holds  that  this  expression  is  put  into  the  mouth  of  these 
Samaritans  by  the  evangelist,  opposing  thus  the  view  of  Meyer  who  agrees 
with  Godet.  But  the  natural  pointing  of  the  words  of  Jesus  with  respect 
to  worship  is  towards  the  possibility  of  true  worship  in  the  case  of  any 
man,  and  independently  of  place,  and  this  question  of  worship  was  the  one 
which  these  people  were  most  likely  to  have  discussed  with  Jesus  as  the 
great  question  pertaining  to  their  nation  and  the  Jews.  If  in  their  com- 
munications with  Him  they  become  convinced  of  His  wonderful  charac- 
ter, and  had  even  a  glimpse  of  this  independency  of  place  belonging  to 
the  true  worship,  their  thought  must  have  gone  out  beyond  national  lim- 
itations to  a  universal  worshiping  of  God.  That  they  had  a  clear  and  full 
comprehension  of  this,  as  the  writer  had  at  the  time  of  his  writing,  is  not 
probable.  Such  a  supposition  is  not  required  by  their  use  of  the  words. 
But  that  they  should  have  expressed  the  thought,  which  they  must  have 
derived  as  intimated  above,  by  these  words,  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  un- 
natural. Jesus  taught  His  disciples  by  the  suggestion  of  great  thoughts. 
They  had  but  a  feeble  grasp  of  them  at  the  first.  At  a  later  time,  they 
entered  into  deeper  knowledge.  But  the  story,  as  told  from  the  standpoint 
of  the  later  period,  must  be  interpreted,  oftentimes,  not  from  the  time  of 
the  recording  of  it,  but  from  that  of  the  events.  An  illustrative  example 
may  be  found  in  xvi.  30.  How  true  to  the  life  are  the  words  of  the  disci- 
ples which  are  there  recorded :  "  Now  we  know  that  thou  knowest  all 
things,  and  needest  not  that  any  one  should  ask  thee."  And  yet,  how 
evident  it  is  that  in  relation  to  what  His  meaning  was  their  minds  had,  at 
the  most,  only  a  glimmering  of  the  light.  Indeed,  the  very  words  of  Jesus 
which  follow  seem  to  intimate  this  :  "  Do  ye  now  believe  ?  Behold  the 
hour  cometh,  yea,  is  come,  that  ye  shall  be  scattered  every  man  to  his  own 
and  shall  leave  me  alone."  The  word  which  He  spoke  to  Peter  at  the  end 
with  reference  to  His  departure  to  the  unseen  world,  might,  in  a  certain 
sense,  be  applied  to  His  life  with  His  disciples  in  the  region  of  the  truth  : 
"  Thou  canst  not  follow  me  now,  but  thou  shalt  follow  me  afterwards.'' 
So,  in  this  case  of  the  Samaritan  believers,  the  words  which  were  used 
were  the  expression  of  the  fust  outgoing  of  their  thought  beyond  the 
boundaries  of  their  own  nation  and  beyond  the  Jews.  But  the  apprecia- 
tion of  what  salvation  for  the  world  was — this  could  only  be  gained  many 


550  ADDITIONAL   NOTES   BY   THE   AMERICAN   EDITOR. 

years  afterwards.  The  story  tells  what  they  said,  and  they  may  well  have 
said  these  words.  The  meaning  of  the  words  to  their  minds  must  be 
judged  of,  not  by  what  we  know,  but  by  what  they  knew. 

XXIII. 

1.  The  explanation  of  ver.  44  which  is  given  by  Godet  and  Meyer,  is  in 
all  probability  the  correct  one :  namely,  that  Jesus  made  His  entrance  upon 
His  ministry  in  Galilee  only  after  He  had  been  at  Jerusalem  and  had,  as 
it  were,  assumed  His  office  there — and  after  He  had  there  gained  the  atten- 
tion of  the  people  in  some  degree — because  of  His  knowledge  of  the  gen- 
eral truth  stated  in  this  verse.  Of  the  very  recent  writers  on  this  Gospel, 
Keil,  Westcott,  Milligan  and  Moulton  hold  that  the  reference  of  the 
words  his  own  country,  so  far  as  Jesus  is  concerned,  is  to  Judea,  and  not  to 
Galilee.  He  went  away  from  Judea  to  Galilee,  therefore,  because  He  did 
not  find  honor  in  the  former  region.  Westcott  even  thinks  that  it  is  impos- 
sible that  John  should  speak  of  Galilee  in  this  connection  as  Christ's  own 
country.  But  let  us  observe  :  (a)  that  John  does  not  anywhere  state  that 
Jesus  had  His  home  or  birthplace  in  Judea ;  (b)  that  in  vii.  41,  42,  to 
which  Westcott  refers,  the  people  question  as  to  whether  He  can  be  the 
Christ  because  He  comes  from  Galilee  as  they  suppose ;  (c)  that  Philip 
speaks  of  Him  to  Nathanael  in  i.  45  as  of  Nazareth,  and  Nathanael,  in  i. 
46,  hesitates  to  believe  because  of  this  fact ;  (d)  that  He  is  called  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  in  all  the  Gospels  ;  (e)  that  according  to  Matthew  and  Luke,  who 
give  the  story  of  his  birth  at  Bethlehem,  His  childhood's  home  was  Naza- 
reth;  (/)  that  the  proverb  here  used  is  referred  by  the  earlier  Gospels  to 
Nazareth  ;  (g)  that  the  words  :  He  came  to  his  own,  i.  11,  which  are  some- 
times referred'to  as  favoring  the  idea  that  Judea  is  meant  here,  have  no 
real  force  as  bearing  upon  the  question,  first,  because  all  the  Jews  were  "  His 
own  "  and  not  merely  the  Judean  Jews,  and  secondly,  because,  if  this  be  not 
so,  there  is  evidently  in  those  words  no  exclusive  reference  to  His  first  visit 
to  Jerusalem,  but,  on  the  other  hand,  a  pointing  to  the  whole  attitude  of 
the  Jews,  especially  the  leading  Jews,  towards  Him.  The  relation  of 
Jesus  to  Nazareth  is  presented  in  such  a  way  in  all  the  Gospels — this  one 
as  well  as  the  earlier  three — as  to  show  that  it  was  evidently  looked  upon 
as  His  home  and  that  Galilee  was  His  country,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that 
His  birth  had  taken  place  at  Bethlehem.  2.  Ver.  43  takes  up  the  narra- 
tive from  vv.  1,  2  of  this  chapter  and  carries  on  the  story  of  the  return  to  Gal- 
ilee, which  had  been  interrupted  by  the  account  of  the  meeting  with  the 
woman  of  Samaria,  etc.  Those  first  verses  intimate  that  Jesus  had  had 
very  considerable  success  in  Jerusalem  and  Judea — He  was  making  and 
baptizing,  it_  was  said,  more  disciples  than  John.  Ver.  45  indicates  the 
same  thing.  The  connection  of  the  verses  is,  therefore,  unfavorable  to  the 
view  that  the  proverb  is  introduced  here  as  referring  to  Judea.  Weiss,  on 
the  other  hand,  holds  that  the  connection  here  is  with  the  matter  of  leav- 
ing Samaria,  and  he  explains  the  44th  verse  by  saying  that  Jesus  leaves 
Samaria,  where  He  had  already  gained  honor  (ver.  42),  to  labor  to  the  end 


CHAPTER  IV.  551 

of  gaining  it  in  Galilee — the  disciples  were  to  be  left  to  reap  the  harvest  in 
Samaria,  while  He  was  to  go  as  a  sower  to  a  region  where,  according  to 
the  proverb,  tbe  foundation  work  was  still  to  be  done.  But,  in  addition 
to  what  Godet  says  against  this  view,  there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that 
the  disciples  accompanied  Jesus  into  Galilee.  The  connection  of  this 
statement  with  the  idea  of  sowing  and  reaping  (vv.  35-38),  is  quite  improb- 
able. Those  verses  contain  an  incidental  saying  suggested  by  the  circum- 
stances of  the  visit  to  Sychar.  But  now  the  story  moves  on  to  an  entirely 
new  matter,  and  it  is  not  to  be  believed  that  the  writer  would  expect  his 
readers  to  think  of  such  a  connection,  without  bringing  it  out  more  clearly 
in  what  he  was  writing. 

XXIV. 

With  reference  to  w.  46-54  it  may  be  remarked :  1.  The  writer  seems 
purposely  to  introduce  the  allusion  to  the  former  miracle  at  Cana.  He  is 
about  to  close  that  portion  of  his  narrative  which  is,  in  any  sense,  united  with 
the  story  of  the  first  visit  of  Jesus  to  Jerusalem.  The  closing  section  of  this 
part  is  a  miracle  wrought  by  Jesus,  and  in  the  same  region  where  the  story 
began.  We  may  believe  that  this  miracle  set  its  seal  upon  the  faith  that 
had  grown  up  in  the  minds  of  the  disciples  in  connection  with  all  the  tes- 
timony which  had  now  been  received  by  them,  as  the  former  one  had 
established  the  beginning  of  their  belief,  founded  upon  the  first  sight  of 
Jesus.  The  careful  arrangement  of  the  author's  plan,  as  related  to  the 
bringing  out  of  the  two  ideas  of  testimony  and  belief,  is  seen  again  here, 
as  it  is  both  before  this  and  afterwards.  2.  That  this  story  of  the  healing 
of  the  son  of  the  royal  officer  is  not  to  be  identified  with  that  in  Matt, 
viii.  5  ff.,  Luke  vii.  2  ff.,  is  maintained  by  most  of  the  recent  commentators 
on  this  Gospel.  The  main  points  of  difference,  which  are  certainly  very 
striking,  and  which  bear  upon  all  the  elements  of  the  story,  are  pointed 
out  by  Godet.  In  the  case  of  two  stories  of  common  life,  where  the  sick 
person  was  in  one  a  son,  in  another  a  servant ;  where  the  disease  was  in 
one  a  paralysis,  in  the  other  a  fever;  where  the  person  performing  the 
cure  was,  in  one,  at  one  place,  and  in  the  other,  at  another ;  where  all  the 
words  used  on  all  sides  were  different ;  where,  in  one,  the  petitioner  for  the 
cure  urges  the  physician  to  hasten  to  his  house  that  he  may  cure  the  sick 
person  before  it  is  too  late,  and,  in  the  other,  tells  him  that  it  is  unneces- 
sary for  him  to  go  to  the  house  at  all ;  where  in  the  one  the  petitioner  finds 
the  sick  person  healed  on  the  same  day  on  which  he  makes  his  request, 
and  in  the  other  only  learns  the  fact  on  the  next  day  ;  and  where,  to  say  the 
least,  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  petitioner  was  the  same  person  in  the  two 
cases,  but,  on  the  other  hand,  he  is  described  by  different  words,  and  all  his 
thoughts  as  related  to  the  matter  are  different,  it  would  be  supposed  that 
the  two  stories  referred  to  different  facts.  But  we  are  not  expected  l>y  the 
exacting  critics  to  deal  with  the  New  Testament  narratives  in  this  way. 
Weiss  thinks  that  the  oldest  form  oft  lie  Synoptic  narrative  is  here  found  in 
Matthew  and  that  he  means  by  tralg  son,  (not  servemt),  that  is  to  say,  the  vl6q 
Of  John,  and  that  Luke  misapprehended  the  meaning,  and  called  the  vah;f 


552  ADDITIONAL   NOTES   BY   THE   AMEEICAN   EDITOE. 

dovlog.  May  not  Weiss  himself  possibly  have  misapprehended  the  meaning? 
Luke's  advantages  for  determining  this  question  would  seem,  on  the  whole, 
to  be  equally  great  with  those  of  a  scholar  of  this  generation.  But  while 
Luke  did  not  know  that  the  sick  person  was  a  son,  and  not  a  servant,  he 
is,  according  to  Weiss,  nearer  the  original  source  than  Matthew,  in  saying 
simply  that  he  was  sick  and  near  to  death,  instead  of  saying  that  he  had 
paralysis.  John,  however,  we  may  observe,  moves  off  in  another  line,  and 
thinks  he  had  a  fever.  The  reconstruction  of  the  Gospel  narratives  must 
be  admitted  to  be  a  pretty  delicate  task,  when  it  has  tQ  make  its  winding 
way  through  the  work  of  bringing  two  such  stories  into  one.  3.  The  part 
of  this  passage  which  is  most  difficult  to  be  exjilained  is  the  48th  verse. 
The  father  who  comes  to  Jesus  seems  to  give  no  indication  of  any  want 
of  faith.  On  the  contrary,  his  coming  is,  in  itself,  apparently  an  evidence 
of  faith.  Ver.  50  shows  "that  he  was  ready  to  believe,  even  on  the  founda- 
tion of  Jesus'  assurance  that  his  son  lives,  and  without  any  movement  on, 
Jesus'  part  towards  Capernaum.  Immediately  on  his  return  home,  and 
on  seeing  the  fulfillment  of  the  word  of  Jesus,  he  becomes  His  disciple. 
It  is  possible,  indeed,  that  this  word  of  Jesus  in  ver.  48  was  the  turning- 
point  for  the  nobleman  from  a  weak  towards  a  stronger  faith  ;  but  nothing 
in  the  narrative  clearly  indicates  this.  It  is  possible,  on  the  other  hand, 
that  this  call  for  miraculous  aid  turns  the  thought  of  Jesus  to  the  general 
state  of  mind  of  the  people,  and  that  He  has  reference  to  this  only  in  His 
words.  But  the  words  npbg  avrov,  and  the  difficulty  of  supposing  that  He 
would  address  a  man  under  such  circumstances  in  this  way,  when  the 
man's  faith  was  not  at  all  of  the  character  described,  are  serious  objections 
to  this  view.  Probably  we  must  explain  the  verse  by  combining  both 
views,  and  at  least  find  in  the  bearing  of  the  words  upon  the  man  him- 
self some  designed  educational  influence  as  to  the  true  nature  of  faith. 
4.  The  miracle  here  wrought  differs  from  the  one  recorded  in  ii.  1-11,  in 
that  it  was  wrought  at  a  distance.  It  is  in  this  respect  that  it  gives  a  new 
testimony,  and  for  this  reason,  as  we  may  believe,  it  is  introduced  into  the 
narrative.  The  other  points  in  which  its  character  varied  from  that  of  the 
one  in  Cana  were  less  important  for  the  writer's  purpose. 


XXV. 

CHAPTER  V. 

The  conclusion  to  which  Godet  comes  with  regard  to  the  feast  men- 
tioned in  the  first  verse — that  it  was  the  feast  of  Purim — is  probably, 
though  not  certainly,  correct.  This  feast  will  meet  satisfactorily  the  fact 
of  the  absence  of  the  article  (which  seems  to  be  the  original  text),  and  the 
apparent  demands  of  the  narrative  with  respect  to  time.  In  a  story 
which,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  it  is  evidently  planned  on  the  prin- 
ciple of  selection,  yet  follows  carefully  the  chronological  sequence  of 
events,  it  is  scarcely  possible  that  a  whole  year  between  this  first  verse 
(that  is,  what  happened  at  the  time  of  this  feast)  and  vi.  4,  would  be 


CHAPTER  V.  553 

altogether  omitted.  But  this  would  be  the  feet,  if  this  feast  was  a  Pass- 
over.   The  same  would  be  the  case,  substantially,  if  it  was  Pentecost.    At 

the  time  of  the  other  feasts  of  the  year  in  which  the  first  Passover  occurred, 
Jesus  had  probably  (according  to  the  impression  of  the  narrative)  been 
absent  from  Jerusalem.  The  feast  here  referred  to,  must,  therefore,  have 
been  either  the  Passover  or  Pentecost,  if  it  was  one  of  the  more  promi- 
nent feasts.  The  objections  to  the  view  that  it  was  Purina  do  not  appear 
to  have  special  weight.  As  for  the  allusion  to  such  a  minor  feast,  it  is  to 
be  observed  that  the  narrative  is  not  given  for  the  occasion,  hut  for  what 
occurred.  The  miracle  and  the  discourse  belonged  to  the  testimony. 
They  must  be  recorded,  of  course,  whenever  they  happened  to  occur. 
As  for  the  presence  of  Jesus  at  this  feast  and  His  absence  a  month  later 
at  the  Passover  (vi.  4),  His  action,  provided  He  was  absent  at  the  latter 
festival,  may  be  accounted  for  in  connection  with  the  plan  of  His  life  and 
work.  The  appointed  hour  was  not  to  be  hastened.  Keil  is  undoubtedly 
correct  in  saying  that  all  which  can  be  positively  affirmed  is,  that  the  feast 
occurred  between  the  Passover  mentioned  in  ii.  13  and  the  one  alluded  to 
in  vi.  4.  But  we  may  go  beyond  positive  affirmations,  and  may  look  for 
probabilities.  Looking  at  these,  we  find  that  the  limits  within  which  it 
may  be  placed  are  December  and  April  (iv.  35  and  vi.  4),  and  this  fact 
points  towards  the  feast  of  Purim. 

With  respect  to  the  miracle  and  the  man  on  whom  it  was  wrought,  the 
following  points  may  be  noticed:  1.  The  peculiarity  of  the  miracle,  as 
distinguishing  it  from  the  one  mentioned  in  iv.  4G  ff.,  is  found  in  the  long 
continuance  of  the  illness.  This  miracle  does  not  seem,  however,  to  be 
recorded  for  its  own  sake,  so  much  as  with  reference  to  the  discourse  to 
which  it  gave  occasion.  2.  It  is  held  by  many  writers,  that  the  words 
which  Jesus  addressed  to  the  man,  when  he  met  him  again  after  the  heal- 
ing :  "  Sin  no  more,  lest  a  worse  thing  come  upon  thee,"  prove  that  the 
man's  disease  was  occasioned  by  his  sin.  While  this  may  be  the  fact,  it'is 
yet  not  certainly  so.  Jesus  is  evidently  comparing  the  penalty  <  >f  sin  with 
the  sickness.  But  it  is  not  necessary,  for  this  reason,  to  hold  that  the  sin 
caused  the  sickness.  Is  He  not  rather  urging  him  to  become  free  from 
the  spiritual  malady  in  which  he,  like  other  men,  is  involved,  as  he  had 
become  free  from  his  physical  malady?  The  evidence  that  the  bodily 
maladies  referred  to  in  the  Gospel  narratives  were  generally  occasioned  by 
special  sins  on  the  part  of  the  individuals  concerned,  is  very  slight  The 
opinion  that  such  is  the  case  is,  substantially,  founded  wholly  upon  con- 
jecture. 3.  The  fact  mentioned  in  ver.  13,  that  the  man  was  cured  by 
Jesus  without  knowing  who  He  was,  is  one  which  strikingly  marks  this 
story.  It  must  have  affected  the  minds  of  the  disciples,  as  their  thoughts, 
full  of  wonder,  were  turned  more  and  more  towards  what  Jesus  was  and 
what  He  was  doing.  4.  The  opposition  of  the  Jews  is  represented  as 
excited  by  two  things:  first,  by  Jesus' violation  of  the  Sabbath,  and  sec- 
ondly, and  in  a  still  higher  degree,  by  what  I  lis  defense  of  Himself  against 
their  first  charge  seemed  to  them  to  involve.  This  last  matter  is  evidently 
the  starting-point  for  the  discourse  which  follows,  and  thus  it  is  in  eonnec- 


554  ADDITIONAL   NOTES   BY   THE  AMERICAN   EDITOR. 

tion  with  this  point  that  the  whole  substance  of  this  chapter — both  in  its 
earlier  and  its  later  portion — is  introduced.  The  idea  which  these  Jews 
had  of  Jesus'  claims  is  an  important  element  in  the  chapter,  as  related 
to  its  thought. 

XXVI. 

There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  what  the  Jews  charged  upon 
Jesus  was,  that  He  made  Himself  equal  with  God — laov  ™  6eu>..  To  this 
charge  it  is,  that  He  addresses  Himself;  and  the  question  of  the  chapter 
is,  whether  He  accepts  their  understanding  and  defends  His  claim,  or 
whether  He  explains  Himself  as  not  affirming  what  they  allege,  and  thus 
escapes  their  charge  by  placing  Himself  in  a  position,  not  of  equality  with 
God,  but  of  inferiority  to  Him.  In  connection  with  this  subject,  there  are 
some  points  of  special  interest  which  may  be  noticed. 

1.  Viewing  the  book  in  the  light  of  its  plan,  we  may  observe  that,  in 
the  gradual  development  of  the  proof  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God,  the  Divine  Logos,  the  matter" of  His  equality  with  God  is  the  highest 
point.  We  should  expect  it  to  be  brought  forward  as  the  latest  rather 
than  the  earliest  thing,  and  to  be  set  forth  by  progressive  testimony,  rather 
than  all  at  once.  This  would  be  a  thing  especially  to  be  expected  in  a 
book  in  which  testimony  and  proof  were  intended  to  move,  in  any  measure, 
along  with  experience.  The  phenomena  of  the  book  are  in  accordance 
with  what  we  should  thus  expect.  The  testimony  of  various  sorts  to  vari- 
ous ends,  which  have  been  already  referred  to  in  these  notes,  have  all 
been  presented  before  this  one  is  first  introduced.  The  development  of 
the  testimony  with  reference  to  this  point,  on  the  other  hand,  is  progres- 
sive. We  do  not  find  it,  and  cannot  expect  to  find  it,  in  its  full  presenta- 
tion, in  the  present  chapter. 

2.  The  portion  of  the  proof  which  is  given  here  is  suggested,  as  it 
naturally  must  have  been,  by  the  circumstances  of  the  case.  The  work 
performed  was  that  of  healing,  accompanied  by  a  turning  of  the'  thought 
of  the  one  who  was  healed  to  the  new  spiritual  life.  Jesus  calls  the 
thoughts  of  the  Jewish  adversaries,  therefore,  to  the  work  which  He  has 
to  do  with  relation  to  men  and  to  the  great  question  of  judgment  and  sal- 
vation. These  things  pertain  to  His  Messianic  office  in  respect  to  which 
He  is  the  messenger  of  the  Father  to  the  world,  His  commissioned  agent 
for  the  carrying  out  of  His  plan.  He  presents  Himself  necessarily,  there- 
fore, with  &  certain  element  of  subordination.  But,  with  this  element  of 
subordination  essentially  connected  with  His  office,  there  is  set  forth 
equality.  The  Son  does  what  the  Father  does ;  even  the  greatest  of  all 
works,  in  the  sphere  of  thought  which  is  opened,— the  gift  of  spiritual  life 
and  the  final  judgment  are  even  wholly  in  the  hands  of  the  Son ;  the 
resurrection  and  the  eternal  destiny  of  all  are  in  His  power.  And  men 
are  to  honor  the  Son  even  as  they  honor  the  Father.  What  could  have 
been  the  thoughts  of  His  adversaries,  as  they  heard  these  claims  to 
equality  in  working  and  in  honor,  except  that  He  actually  assumed  to 
Himself  that  equality  which  they  had  charged  Him  with  assuming? 


CHAPTER   V.  555 

They  could  not  have  believed  thai  He  was  explaining  away  the  offensive- 
nesa  to  their  minds  of  Hi*  words  in  ver.  17.  They  certainly  did  not  be- 
lieve this,  as  we  see  by  the  later  chapters  in  the  narrative. 

3.  They  did  not  claim  that  He  made  Himself  the  same  with  the  Father, 
but  equal  with  Him.  It  must  be  observed  that  the  evidences  for  His 
claims  are  such  as,  when  taken  in  connection  with  their  charge,  were 
calculated  to  impress  them  with  the  conviction  that  He  was  supporting 
His  assumption  of  the  equality  of  which  they  spoke,  and  not  putting  Him- 
self on  a  lower  position.  The  miraculous  works — even  greater  things 
than  they  had  seen — and  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  were  His  wit- 
nesses. He  even  declared  that  He  did  not  look  to  human  testimony. 
The  appeal  to  such  evidences  after  such  a  charge,  the  declaration  even 
that  the  Old  Testament  had  its  meaning  and  end  in  Him.  could  not  have 
sounded  in  the  ears  of  those  hearers  as  a  withdrawal  of  any  claim  to  that 
which  they  had  accused  Him  of  claiming. 

4.  What  must  have  been  the  thought  of  the  five  or  six  earliest  disciples, 
as  they  added  these  words  which  rested  upon  this  miracle  to  all  that  they 
had  heard  or  seen  before.  Certainly  their  thought  must  have  moved 
forward  to  higher  ideas  of  Jesus,  and  what  He  now  said  must  have  made 
them  wait  eagerly  and  wonderingly  for  further  revelations. 


XXVII. 

The  discourse  of  Jesus  is  made  by  Godet  to  consist  of  three  parts.  Per- 
haps, it  may  better  be  divided  into  four.  From  ver.  19  to  ver.  30,  Jesus 
evidently  gives  His  answer  to  their  charge  and  explains  His  powers  and 
office.  From  ver.  31  to  ver.  40,  He  gives  the  evidences  on  which  He  rests 
in  His  declarations  respecting  Himself.  From  ver.  41  to  ver.  44,  He  sets 
before  them  the  reason  why  they  will  not  accept  Him  for  what  He  is— it 
is  because  they  have  not  in  their  hearts  the  love  of  God.  From  ver.  45  to 
ver.  47,  He  points  them  to  the  final  issue  for  themselves  of  their  rejection 
of  Him,  and  declares  that  it  will  be  the  author  of  the  books  containing 
their  own  law,  who  will  be  their  accuser  before  God  and  whose  writings 
will  be  their  condemnation. 

XXVIII. 

Vv.  19-29. — 1.  The  reference  in  ver.  19  ff.,  to  the  union  between  the  Son 
and  the  Father  is  to  the  complete  union  in  working,  which  is  founded 
upon  love,  and  upon  the  immediate  seeing  of  what  the  Father  does  which 
is  connected  with  this  love,  and  to  that  subordination  in  love,  with  respect 
to  His  earthly  work,  which  necessarily  appertains  to  Him  as  fulfilling  the 
commission  of  the  Father.  No  subordination  beyond  this  is  necessarily 
indicated  by  the  words.  2.  The  answer  which  Jesus  makes  to  the  Jews 
is,  therefore,  not  a  denial  of  His  equality  with  God,  but  an  affirmation 
that,  in  His  work  alluded  to,  what  He  claims  for  Himself  is  only  in  har- 
mony with  God's  plan  and  is  in  the  union  and  subordination  of  love  to 


556  ADDITIONAL    NOTES    BY   THE    AMERICAN    EDITOR. 

Him.  3.  The  thought  is  especially  turned  to  the  great  work  of  the  Son 
in  reference  to  man.  There  seems  to  be  no  ground  for  doubting  that  the 
word  Zuowoiei,  as  used  at  the  end  of  ver.  21,  refers  to  spiritual  life,  and  that 
it  is  this  subject  which  is  spoken  of  in  vv.  24-27.  The  thought  is  thus 
connected  with  that  in  iii.  17  f.,  though  the  development  of  it  is  not  the 
same,  but  is  determined  by  the  circumstances  of  the  case.  The  words 
"and  now  is"  of  ver.  25,  and  the  addition  of  the  words  "  in  the  tombs," 
"  come  forth,"  and  "  resurrection  of  life,"  etc.,  in  vv.  28,  29,  which  are  not 
found  in  the  earlier  verses,  can  hardly  be  explained  except  as  we  hold 
that  there  is  a  turn  of  thought  towards  the  future  judgment  at  ver.  28, 
which  has  not  been  referred  to  until  that  point.  4.  The  use  of  the  word 
judgment  in  this  passage  24-27,  as  also  vv.  28,  29,  is  kindred  to  that  in  iii. 
17  ff.  The  same  reasons,  substantially,  may  be  urged  for  giving  the  sense 
of  condemnatory  judgment  to  the  word,  as  were  presented  in  the  note  on 
the  former  passage.  The  manifest  reference  to  the  final  judgment  in  vv. 
28,  29,  taken  in  connection  with  the  general  representation  of  the  judg- 
ment in  the  New  Testament,  makes- this  distinction  between  favorable  and 
unfavorable  judgment  altogether  probable  here. — 5.  The  judgment 
alluded  to  in  the  earlier  verses  is,  as  it  were,  anticipatory  of  that  men- 
tioned in  the  later  ones.  This  use  of  the  word  belongs  in  connection 
with  the  general  idea  presented  in  this  Gospel,  and  brought  out  in  this 
passage,  that  the  eternal  life  begins  in  the  soul  when  the  man  believes, 
and  is  not  only  a  future  possession  to  be  hoped  for,  but  a  present  one 
already  realized.  The  judgment,  in  this  sense,  is  a  thing  already  accom- 
plished, both  on  the  favorable  and  unfavorable  side.  When  the  spiritu- 
ally dead  hear  the  voice  of  the  Son  of  God,  they  pass  out  of  death  into 
life ;  when  the  physically  dead  hear  His  voice,  they  also  pass  into  life, — 
but  the  latter  passing  into  life  is  only  the  consummation  of  what  is  desig- 
nated by  the  former.  The  decision  is  really  made  in  the  act  of  believing. 
The  life  moves  forward  from  the  moment  of  that  act,  and  the  last  step  in 
the  process  is  only  like  all  the  others — a  step  in  a  progressive  develop- 
ment. The  same  is  true,  on  the  other  side,  of  the  one  who  does  not 
believe. — 6.  The  words  vlbg  hvdpuirov,  being  without  the  article,  are  best 
taken  as  indicative  of  quality,  rather  than  as  equivalent  to  the  same 
words  with  the  article.  At  the  same  time,  they  do  not  exclude  the 
Messianic  idea.  To  the  Son  is  given  the  authority  to  execute  judgment 
because,  as  the  Son  of  man,  He  is  a  son  of  man.  This  relationship  which 
He  has  in  nature  to  those  who  are  to  be  judged  is  the  ground  on  which, 
in  the  great  plan  of  salvation,  He  is  made  the  judge,  and  the  question  of 
life  and  death  is  made  dependent  on  belief  in  Him.  The  qualitative 
character  of  the  expression  vlbg  tov  avdp.,  including  at  the  same  time  a 
certain  reference  to  the  title-character  which  belongs  to  the  words  when 
the  article  is  added — this  is,  not  improbably,  the  combined  idea  which  is 
to  be  found  in  the  two  other  cases  in  the  New  Testament,  which  are 
similar  to  this ;  comp.  Eev.  i.  13,  xiv.  14.  But  in  those  passages,  the 
influence  of  the  words  in  Dan.  vii.  13  may  be  more  direct  and  manifest, 
and  accordingly  the  explanation  given  here  is  less  strongly  indicated. — 


CHAPTER   V.  557 

7.  Weiss  holds,  with  respect  to  the  last  words  of  ver.  29,  that  the  resurrec- 
tion of  those  who  have  done  evil  is  only  for  the  purpose  of  the  condemna- 
tory judgment,  and  that  thus,  both  here  and  elsewhere  in  the  New 
Testament,  no  resurrection  of  the  evil-doers,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the 
term,  is  spoken  of — that  the  term  as  applied  to  them  is  to  be  understood 
only,  as  it  were,  icar'  avri^paaif.  The  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
unbelieving  and  evil  portion  of  mankind  is  set  forth,  indeed,  only  in  a 
few  passages  in  the  New  Testament,  and  in  these  only  in  a  general  way. 
It  seems,  however,  to  be  stated  distinctly  in  Acts  xxiv.  15,  apparently  also 
in  this  place,  and  possibly  in  1  Cor.  xv.  22.  Passages  such  as  Phil.  iii.  11, 
Luke  xx.  35  may  be  explained  without  involving  an  opposite  doctrine. 
That  the  resurrection  should  be  mainly  referred  to  as  connected  with 
the  righteous,  is  not  strange,  for  it  was  for  them  the  consummation  of 
the  blessedness  of  that  life  to  which  the  New  Testament  writers  would 
turn  the  thoughts  and  hopes  of  men. 

XXIX. 

Vv.  31-40. — 1.  The  presentation  of  the  testimony  on  which  He  rests 
His  claims  is  opened  by  Jesus  with  the  words  of  ver.  31.  These  words 
must  be  interpreted  in  connection  with  viii.  14,  and  must  therefore  be 
understood  as  conveying  the  idea,  that,  if  the  only  witness  which  He  has 
to  offer  is  His  own,  He  is  content  to  be  judged  by  the  ordinary  rule. 
Such,  however,  is  not  the  fact.  He  is  supported  by  the  testimony  of 
another,  and  that  other  even  God  Himself.  Being  thus  able  to  appeal  to 
this  highest  of  all  testimony,  He  is  also  able  to  say  (viii.  14)  that,  though 
in  a  given  case  He  actually  bears  witness  of  Himself,  the  witness  is 
nevertheless  true. — 2.  That  the  akloq  of  ver.  32  is  God,  and  not  John  the 
Baptist,  is  indicated  by  the  reference  to  the  testimony  in  ver.  36,  which 
clearly  points  back  to  this  verse,  and  by  the  evident  parenthetical  and 
subordinate  character  of  the  reference  to  John.  This  reference  to  John, 
however,  is  quite  significant,  especially  in  connection  with  the  prominence 
given  to  John's  testimony  in  all  the  earlier  part  of  this  Gospel.  The 
witness  of  John  would  have  led  these  Jews  to  the  truth,  if  they  had 
suffered  themselves  to  be  influenced  by  it.  It  was  a  divinely-appointed 
testimony — preparatory  and  at  the  foundation.  But  it  was  not  that  on 
which  Jesus  rests  and  that  which  proves  the  truth.  This  latter  is  the  testi- 
mony which  comes  from  God  only. 

3.  The  testimony  which  comes  from  the  Father  is  manifestly  declared, 
in  the  first  place,  to  be  that  of  the  miraculous  works.  Whether  there  are 
two  other  forms  of  testimony  referred  to,  or  only  one,  it  is  somewhat 
difficult  to  determine.  That  which  is  given  in  the  Old  Testament  Scrip- 
tures is  distinctly  set  forth;  and  this  may,  not  improbably,  be  all  that  is 
intended  by  the  words  of  vv.  37-40.  It  may  be,  however,  that  in  ver.  37 
there  is  a  reference  to  something  else — which,  as  it  would  seem,  can  be 
only  the  voice  of  God  in  the  soul.  The  latter  is  favored  by  the  foci  that 
the  direct  mention  of  the  Scriptures  does  not  occur  until  ver.  39,  and 


558  ADDITIONAL   NOTES   BY   THE   AMERICAN   EDITOR. 

even  an  indirect  allusion  to  them  is  not  apparent  until  ver.  38.  The 
words,  "  Ye  have  neither  heard  his  voice  at  any  time,  nor  seen  his  form," 
may  be  regarded  as  pointing  in  the  same  direction.  On  the  other  hand, 
had  this  reference  to  the  Divine  voice  in  the  human  soul  been  intended, 
it  would  seem  natural  that  it  should  have  been  brought  out  with  greater 
fullness  and  clearness.  On  the  whole,  the  reference  to  the  testimony  in 
the  Scriptures  may  be  regarded  as  covering  all  that  is  said  in  vv.  37  ff., 
and  the  words  of  ver.  37b  may  be  taken  in  a  semi-figurative  sense,  as 
implying  that  they  had  not  really  recognized  God  in  His  true  teaching 
and  the  pointing  of  His  revelation  towards  the  Messiah  and  the  Messianic 
kingdom,  when  they  read  and  searched  the  Old  Testament  writings. — 4. 
The  verb  ipevvare  is,  in  all  probability,  an  indicative.  The  development 
of  the  thought  does  not  N  suggest  a  demand  or  exhortation,  but  a  state- 
ment of  their  failure,  through  unwillingness,  to  appreciate  the  testimony 
of  the  book  which  they  themselves  were  always  looking  into  and  the 
study  of  which  they  demanded. 

5.  The  two  testimonies  which  are  here  set  forth — the  works  and  the 
Scriptures — bear  witness,  the  first  as,  in  the  strict  sense,  a  ort/ielov  which 
made  known  the  power  of  God  as  possessed  by  Jesus ;  the  second,  as  show- 
ing that  the  indications  of  the  Old  Testament  all  looked  towards  such  a 
person  and  teaching  and  work  as  they  now  saw  before  them.  To  announce 
the  coming  of  this  Messianic  era  and  the  Messiah  Himself,  John  the  Bap- 
tist had  appeared  and  given  his  witness  to  them.  He  had  aroused  their 
attention  and  interested  their  minds  for  the  time.  He  had  thus,  as  it 
were,  opened  the  door  for  them  to  appreciate  the  new  testimony  presented 
in  the  works,  and  to  understand  fully  the  old  testimony  contained  in  the 
Scriptures.  That  they  did  not  yield  to  the  force  of  the  testimony,  either 
old  or  new,  was  indisputable  proof  that  they  had  not  the  word  of  God 
abiding  in  them — that  they  had  really  never  seen  or  known  Him  in  His 
revelations — that  their  will  was  not  to  receive  the  witness  which  was 
given. 

XXX. 

Vv.  41-44.  The  reason  of  their  failure  to  accept  the  evidence  presented 
to  them  is  set  forth,  in  these  verses,  in  two  forms.  The  first  and  fundamen- 
tal reason  is  the  absence  of  the  true  love  of  God  in  their  hearts.  The 
second  reason,  into  which  the  first  developed  itself  in  its  special  manifes- 
tation, is  the  unwillingness  to  accept  a  Messiah  who  did  not  come  in  the 
line  of  earthly  glory.  The  views  of  a  temporal  kingdom,  as  they  held 
them,  were  connected  with  the  selfish  desire  of  exaltation.  They  were  ready 
to  receive  one  who  came  to  them  with  no  testimony  but  his  own,  and  in 
his  own  name,  if  he  only  met  these  earthly  views.  But  to  the  Divine 
testimony,  whether  in  the  sacred  writings,  or  in  the  wonderful  works,  or  in 
the  words  of  the  forerunner,  they  were  unwilling  to  listen,  because  the  one 
to  whom  all  this  witness  was  borne  appeared  among  them  simply  as  the 
messenger  of  God  to  tell  the  Divine  truth,  and  by  making  known  the  true 
eternal  life,  to  bring  all  who  heard  Him  to  personal  righteousness  and  the 


CHAPTER  V.  559 

possession  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  within  themselves  through  believing 
on  the  Son  of  God. 

XXXI. 

Vv.  45-47.  1.  Meyer  and  Weiss  hold  that  the  last  judgment  is  not  re- 
ferred to  in  these  verses,  because  Christ  is  represented  as  the  judge  on  that 
day,  and  therefore  cannot  be  spoken  of  as  an  accuser  in  connection  with  it. 
Keil  affirms  the  opposite,  saying  that,  as  the  Jews  did  not  acknowledge 
Jesus  to  be  the  Messiah  or  the  judge,  this  consideration  can  have  no 
weight  in  the  decision  of  the  question.  The  true  view  of  this  matter  is, 
not  improbably,  to  be  found  as  we  observe  the  peculiarity  of  the  thought 
of  this  chapter  and  of  other  parts  of  this  Gospel  which  are  kindred  to  it. 
This  writer  does  not  leave  out  of  view  the  final  judgment,  but  his  mind 
moves  in  the  sphere  of  the  present  and  permanent  inward  life,  and  the 
end  is  only  the  consummation.  In  a  certain  sense,  therefore,  judgment 
is  present,  though  it  is  also  in  a  certain  sense  future.  The  mind  of  the 
hearer  or  reader  is  left  to  pass  from  the  one  to  the  other,  and  thus  to  in- 
clude both.  2.  Moses  is  here  spoken  of  as  the  foundation  of  the  Jewish 
legal  system  and  thus  as,  in  a  sense,  the  foundation  or  centre  of  the  Old 
Testament.  It  may  be  that,  according  to  this  view  of  the  matter,  he  and 
his  writings  are  referred  to  as  if  including  the  whole  idea  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Scriptures;  see  ver.  39.  If  the  reference  is  to  the  Pentateuch  only, 
the  allusion  is  doubtless  to  Deut.  xviii.  15,  and  the  other  points  which  Godet 
mentions  in  his  note. 

That  this  first  formal  discourse  of  Jesus,  which  is  recorded  in  this  Gospel, 
is  intended  by  the  evangelist  to  serve  as  testimony  to  his  readers  cannot  be 
questioned.  That  it  is,  in  this  respect,  an  advance  upon  what  has  pre- 
ceded, is  also  clear.  The  relation  of  Jesus  to  the  Father  is  here  set  forth 
— not  indeed  as  fully  as  it  is  in  later  chapters,  but  in  a  part  of  the  unfold- 
ing of  its  true  idea,  and  as  it  is  not  in  the  conversation  with  Nicodemus. 
The  occasion  on  which  this  discourse  was  given,  it  must  be  remembered, 
was  a  year,  or  nearly  a  year  later  than  that  conversation,  and  much  must 
have  been  done  and  said  by  Jesus  in  the  interval.  That  Jesus  in  the  open- 
ing of  the  second  year  of  His  ministry  should  have  advanced  in  His 
teaching  as  far  as  this  discourse  might  indicate,  cannot  justly  be  regarded 
as  improbable.  It  was,  moreover,  with  the  leading  Jews  that  He  carried 
on  this  discussion,  not  with  the  common  people.  If  the  deeper  truths  re- 
specting His  person  and  His  relations  to  the  Father  were  to  be  set  forth 
in  His  earthly  ministry  at  all — and  how  strange  it  would  have  been,  if  no 
such  declaration  had  been  made, — it  would  seem  that,  at  this  time,  the 
beginnings  of  the  full  teachings  might  appear.  The  discourse  of  this 
chapter  stands  no  less  truly  in  its  legitimate  and  natural  historical  posi- 
tion, as  related  to  the  teachings  of  the  chapters  which  precede  and  follow, 
than  it  docs  in  its  proper  place  in  the  progress  of  the  testimony,  which 
the  author  brings  before  liis  readers  in  proof  of  the  great  doctrine  of  his 
book. 


BS2615.G583  1890v.l 
Commentary  on  the  Gospel  of  John  :  with 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00067  6785     I 


DATE  DUE 

<*«***& 

^gsmm^ 

™    0    "    -cvvD 

JUN2  2 

200D 

Al/P     9   fi    2| 

1  /i 

• 

.... 

Demco,  Inc.  38-293 


